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

[Myriad]

I haven't looked but have little doubt that Mills knows that a magnetic dipole in a magnetic field will experience a torque which will align it parallel or antiparallel to the magnetic field.

That's why magnetic compasses sometimes point north and sometimes south, but you can't predict which it will be.

Oh, wait...

 

[JeanTate]

On the contrary, Mills' theory is coherent in that it describes phenomena on all scales based on the same principles.

Really?

I don’t recall you telling us about Mills’ ideas on black holes, neutron stars, gravitational wave radiation, neutrino oscillations, and much more.

The same cannot be said of QM. It must be paired with an incompatible GR.
Granted, Mills' derivations can be obscure, and he does pick and choose what he wants from existing theory. The former can be remedied in time, and the latter is unavoidable.
Also FYI Mills does utilize wave equations, just not the Schrödinger equation.

And yet ... Mills’ “theory” incorporates QM ... it’s just that he doesn’t admit it.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

markie's back, at a gallop.

I'll explain the joke to him. In a subsequent post, I'll summarize some of what's happened in this thread during the past few weeks and its contribution to the general drift/current/torrent/flush of these threads.

Oh lordy. Look at equation 1.158 where instead of cos^2(theta) + sin^2(theta) it is 4cos^2(theta) + sin^2(theta). Clearly Mills wanted to have both the internal and external magnetic energy equations in the same general form and to give insight into how they were derived from the earlier equations involving i.
Instead of mathematical sensibility I see ... accusations of 'trying to impress'. Again, lordy.

You are right about the specific equation (1.156) not being an example of Mills "trying to impress" folks like optiongeek, but optiongeek's attempted evasion of JeanTate's questions did indeed demonstrate the fact that the Big Book of Boo-Boos was written to impress people like you and optiongeek.

After I had written and posted my message, I looked at the context of equation (1.156) and saw where the ridiculous-looking (cos^2(theta) + sin^2(theta)) had come from. I added an "ETA" challenging optiongeek to tell us where that expression had come from, and why optiongeek thought Mills had written the number 1 that way in that equation.

You have spoiled that challenge, but I think we all know whether optiongeek would have been up to the challenge.

The hilarious part of optiongeek's post is that he sought to answer/evade JeanTate's question by trying to impress us by pointing to Mills's ability to simplify the triple integral of equation (1.156) into equation (1.157):

Do you agree that equation 1.156/1.157 correctly evaluates the integral? I believe it fairly represents the physics of the orbitsphere as described in the preceding text. And then when I plug it into my integral solver, I get the same result as shown.

Out of all the hundreds of equations in the Big Book of Boo-Boos, optiongeek picked a very easy triple integral that optiongeek thought was difficult partly because the number 1 had been written as (cos^2(theta) + sin^2(theta)). As you have pointed out, optiongeek's selection of that particular equation says nothing about Mills, but it says a lot about optiongeek.

In particular, it tells us that optiongeek's assurances based on optiongeek's own "reckoning" and beliefs (e.g. as highlighted) are worth about as much as the vice presidency was worth to John Nance Garner.

 

[JeanTate]

Oh lordy. Look at equation 1.158 where instead of cos^2(theta) + sin^2(theta) it is 4cos^2(theta) + sin^2(theta). Clearly Mills wanted to have both the internal and external magnetic energy equations in the same general form and to give insight into how they were derived from the earlier equations involving i.
Instead of mathematical sensibility I see ... accusations of 'trying to impress'. Again, lordy.

Wait ... you and optiongeek are in disagreement, again!?

That’s not very impressive.

 

[optiongeek]

Wait ... you and optiongeek are in disagreement, again!?

That’s not very impressive.

I'm only posting here in the hopes that someone has something relevant to say about the GUTCP-based derivations for the spin flip and the 1 thru 20 electron ions that seem impossible according to QM. My concern is that I've missed something and therefore I no longer need to regard these as proof that Mills' math is superior to QM. So far, the discussion has simply confirmed that the equations are accurate. Equation 1.156 provides one of the key factors that funnel into 1.228 so it's of particular interest. Claims of numerology are indeed valid concerns - you can see that easily in the various approaches taken by the QM-inspired derivations of the spin flip and the ionization energy for Li. However, try as I might, I don't see how numerology can underlie GUTCP when every time I test one part of the derivation, it ties back to correct physics and mathematical results. All we've done here is confirm my conviction. If there was a forum with more astute physicists willing to engage on this topic I'd probably look for answers there instead of here.

 

[JeanTate]

Indeed.

You keep repeating that, but no explanation of why the shell theorem does not apply. It has to be one of the following:

1. The orbitsphere is not spherical.

2. The charge is not evenly distributed over the surface of the orbitsphere.

3. The attractive force between opposite charges is not proportional to the inverse square of distance.

4. Math doesn't work.

... but which one?

It may be interesting to record/summarize markie’s answers on this, since he started posting here.

From memory, leaving aside rather a lot of diversion and obfuscation, it comes down to the orbitsphere being a composite object, comprised of an uncountably (may be countable; I’m not sure if markie knows the difference) infinite number of infinitely thin ribbons, none of which interacts with any other. Within the orbitsphere ... but they do interact with identical ribbons in other orbitspheres, including ones that occupy exactly the same space.

Oh, and yes, some orbitspheres are not spherical, and on some the charge (and mass) is not distributed uniformly.

 

[JeanTate]

I'm only posting here in the hopes that someone has something relevant to say about the GUTCP-based derivations for the spin flip and the 1 thru 20 electron ions that seem impossible according to QM.

If so, you seem to have a strange way of doing that.

Why the posts on g/2, for example?

My concern is that I've missed something and therefore I no longer need to regard these as proof that Mills' math is superior to QM. So far, the discussion has simply confirmed that the equations are accurate. Equation 1.156 provides one of the key factors that funnel into 1.228 so it's of particular interest.

Yet, per markie, what you posted (supposedly copied from the BBoBB) was wrong.

Can you please clarify?

Is what you posted correct, or what markie posted correct (or neither, or both)?

Claims of numerology are indeed valid concerns - you can see that easily in the various approaches taken by the QM-inspired derivations of the spin flip and the ionization energy for Li.

If you don’t understand it, how can you assess it?

However, try as I might, I don't see how numerology can underlie GUTCP when every time I test one part of the derivation, it ties back to correct physics and mathematical results.

Sorry optiongeek, this is flat out wrong.

So far as I can see, none of Mills’ results match the relevant experimental results, within the published uncertainties.

Telling: when I asked you about this, you did not answer.

Why?

All we've done here is confirm my conviction. If there was a forum with more astute physicists willing to engage on this topic I'd probably look for answers there instead of here.

My view: you’ll get the same answers as you’ve been getting here.

Perhaps your time would be better spent learning Physics 101?

 

[JeanTate]

You keep repeating that, but no explanation of why the shell theorem does not apply. It has to be one of the following:

1. The orbitsphere is not spherical.

2. The charge is not evenly distributed over the surface of the orbitsphere.

3. The attractive force between opposite charges is not proportional to the inverse square of distance.

4. Math doesn't work.

... but which one?

Indeed.

It may be interesting to record/summarize markie’s answers on this, since he started posting here.

From memory, leaving aside rather a lot of diversion and obfuscation, it comes down to the orbitsphere being a composite object, comprised of an uncountably (may be countable; I’m not sure if markie knows the difference) infinite number of infinitely thin ribbons, none of which interacts with any other. Within the orbitsphere ... but they do interact with identical ribbons in other orbitspheres, including ones that occupy exactly the same space.

Oh, and yes, some orbitspheres are not spherical, and on some the charge (and mass) is not distributed uniformly.

Here are some, from 4 December, 2018; not at all sure how many are directly relevant, nor how many relevant ones I've missed, particularly before ~late November, 2018.

While the trapped, resonant photon plays a role, it is one of degree. So for instance the electric field at a point on the orbitsphere is the sum of the e field of the proton and the e field of the trapped photon (which points radially) which is stuck to the inner side of the orbitsphere. (See equations 2.6 and on)

I don't agree that the nucleus would be free to go anywhere inside the orbitsphere, any more that I believe the earth is free to be anywhere within the moon's orbit.

I did show it, and my reasoning doesn't require the proton to be anything other than a point. You just weren't paying attention that's all.

Hint: You reasoning is incomplete when you say:
"Newton's third law gives us that there is no net electrostatic force exerted by the proton on the shell."

Again, it's not about the net electrostatic force exerted by the proton on the entire orbitsphere; it's about the force exerted by the proton on any given point on the orbitsphere.

Current loops of the orbitsphere don't crash into each other, they pass through each other just fine, much as the EM fields of a photon pass through those of another photon without incident.

A collection of rings, each ring containing motion of the same speed, would be fine as well. It's just that a satellite swarm had more of a resemblance with what we are familiar with.


Whether the density of orbital points of the swarm becomes great enough to be considered a 'shell' is not relevant to the force exerted by the central object on each point in the orbit. The same orbital mechanics that dictate a very strict distance relationship also means that the central object is locked in place in relation to what is orbiting around it.



The free electron is a circular, planar sheet that can wrap around the nucleus. 2D membrane remains 2D membrane. Mills has an animation of this process on the BLP website. What you are describing is, ironically, what happens in quantum mechanics. A free electron has a trajectory that can be classically described. People working with free electron lasers know this and utilize this fact. But get the electron into the vicinity of a proton and all quantum uncertainty hell breaks loose, where the 'point' electron is simultaneously everywhere and nowhere until measured. And when it is measured, in the case of the hydrogen atom, the point electron only has a 50 percent chance of being found at a distance between one half and three halves of the Bohr radius, according to QM. What does this get from 'skeptics'? A shrug of the shoulders!



First of all, for the visual, a photon of sufficient energy to ionize hydrogen can be almost 3 orders of magnitude larger the hydrogen atom, that is, almost 1000 times bigger than the electron orbitsphere.

Exactly how a light photon knocks an electron out is a question for another day. Suffice it to say for now that in Mills' GUTCP the EM force of the proton on the orbitsphere is in force balance with centrifugal 'force' of the flowing orbitsphere, and an ionizing photon messes with this force balance sufficiently for the electron to - in a manner of speaking - attain escape velocity from the attractive force of the nucleus. Does QM give a play by play version of its version of the process? Don't recall one.

Yes exactly, all points of the shell must be in orbit, all points moving at the same angular velocity. To do this they must be able to move through other points like they don't exist, as we see in the superposition of fields.

For computation purposes Mills uses circular rings instead of points, where each ring could be considered to be composed of a continuum of moving points going around in a circle. Each ring also moves laterally, sweeping out regions of the orbitsphere. (The motions of the rings are coordinated in a very specific manner to produce the required electron properties like spin.)

To achieve a 'shell', there would be an infinite number of rings. I prefer to see it first as a 2D membrane of moving charge (also having mass) with interior motions that can be broken down as ringlike.

This one is quite interesting (my bold)!

If you look at page 85 of Mills' GUTCP you will see a computer rendering of the result of iterated computation for current density on the orbitsphere. It appears that the hairy orbitsphere has one (probably two) tiny bald spots at its poles.

I'm saying that the orbital mechanics don't change simply because the rebar is continuous or cut up into little pieces. You seem to be implying something magical happens when the rebar is connected. The rebar is not pulling on the adjacent rebar if that is what you are thinking.

Again, the shell theorem has everything to say about the electrostatic force of the orbitsphere on any point in the interior; namely, it is zero. It has nothing to say about the force of the central proton on a point of the orbitsphere.

True. The orbits of planets and rings when perturbed achieve another different orbital stability. The orbitsphere of Mills is different in that it comes back to its original shape and size, if it suffered deformation at all. (Frankly I'm not sure about that particular aspect.) This has to do with certain boundary conditions imposed by Mills theory on the electron itself, such as constant angular momentum and such. Such conditions are not met in my gravitational analogies, so those analogies can only go so far.

The 2D orbitsphere membrane experiences no 'self interaction' of charge repulsion. So it does not repel itself and blow up. Mills goes to great lengths to show why this is so as I recall. Off the top of my head it may be that this non self interaction result can be gleaned from the Shell Theorem itself.

Now, for a point charge electron in QM this is a HUGE problem, to which there is no answer afaik.

The assumption for the classical electron having infinite self energy is that it is point like as in QM. Mill's electron is not. Mills electron has zero self energy. (Mills' pseudo electron however has a non zero self energy.) Look at appendix 2 in Mills's GUTCP where he quotes Purcell saying that a 2D patch of charge does not have self force, and Purcell himself implicates Newton in that result when he says "the patch as a whole cannot push on itself."

The infinity of self energy in QM led to renormalization, once an embarrassing necessity by its founders but now warmly embraced like an old worn blanket.

Nature seeks the low energy state, and the deformation from planar to spherical is just part of that process.

The electron has a particular angular momentum distribution as per chapter 3. When it wraps around the nucleus that moving membrane's inertia manifests as outward centrifugal 'force', which is in force balance with the attractive inner coulombic force. That is why the electron doesn't fall into the nucleus.

No worries, the sphere membrane of precessing ring currents around the nucleus is quite stable.

So the answer to your - very pertinent - questions, Myriad, seems to be a mixture of a poor grasp of the relevant physics and mathematics, and blind belief in what Mills has to say.

 

[Reality Check]

...

You ignore a simple fact, optiongeek

... Many delusions and lies in Mills book...
Mills' deluded book has tables where he gets every ionization energy he calculates wrong !

 

[Reality Check]

RealityCheck's point stands: the value calculated using standard quantum mechanics is 12 times as close to the experimental value as the value calculated by Mills.

My point is even more basic. Mills tables state that the measured values do not match Mills calculated values. He even has a column listing the deviation from the measured value! Thus Mills lies when he writes that the calculations match the measured values.

Mills error is basic science. By not including the uncertainties in the calculated values, Mills has essentially made it impossible for his calculations to match experimental values.

The QM calculations are (as I recall) are ignored or denied or unknown by Mills. As you point out, there is at least 1 case where they are much better than Mills calculations which explains why Mills did not include any in his book.

 

[Reality Check]

Thanks. However that derivation strikes me as the elaborations of a bad liar. Non physical fudge factor piled on top of non physical fudge factor. No thanks.

A rather insanely insulting and ignorant post about literally textbook physics, optiongeek.
Chapter One - A Practical Guide to Reliable First Principles Computational Thermochemistry Predictions Across the Periodic Table

The Feller–Peterson–Dixon approach to the reliable prediction of thermochemical properties to chemical accuracy is described. The method calculates the total atomization energy of a molecule and then uses experimental atomic heats of formation to calculate the heat of formation. The method is based on extrapolating coupled cluster CCSD(T) calculations of the valence electronic energy to the complete basis set limit followed by additive corrections to the electronic energy including: core–valence interactions, scalar relativistic, spin–orbit, and higher order corrections beyond CCSD(T). Corrections for the nuclear motion in terms of the zero-point energy need to be included and for high-accuracy, Born–Oppenheimer corrections may be added. Issues with these terms and the experimental atomic data are described. A summary of the reliability of the approach is presented.

How do you calculate the ionization energy of lithium? is a answer to the question.

 

[optiongeek]

A rather insanely insulting and ignorant post about literally textbook physics, optiongeek.
Chapter One - A Practical Guide to Reliable First Principles Computational Thermochemistry Predictions Across the Periodic Table



How do you calculate the ionization energy of lithium? is a answer to the question.

I've searched for a set of computations based on QM theory that can rival the simplicity, compactness and universal predictability of GUTCP. I haven't found yet, nor has anyone on this thread been able to point me to one. There are versions that provide absurd levels of precision but only through the use of multiple magic fudge factors like in the computation of Li's ionization you have linked. Alternatively, I have found packages such as [Spartan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_(chemistry_software)) that provide values no better than random guesses when compared across multiple atoms and molecules. No one has ever been able to show me a methodology that derives from the Schrodinger equation that I can implement in a spreadsheet but gives both accuracy and predictability.

It's a simple test really. Show me a method that works as well as GUTCP does for 1 - 20 electron atoms/ions. In years of asking this question, no one has come close to answering it.

 

[Reality Check]

But here's the thing. ....

You do not understand, optiongeek. You apply Mills delusions and get even more invalid, seemingly different values that show that Mills or your calculations are wrong .

5.39271223 eV.

Comparison:

5.39171495        ; experimental value (per NIST)
5.39271223        ; calculated using quantum mechanics
5.40390           ; as calculated by Mills in his Big Book

NIST's web pages are down during the Trump shutdown. The QM calculation uses a computational technique devised by David A Dix, David Feller, and Kirk A Peterson.

5.4089      : as calculated by [B]optiongeek[/B]

5.4089 is not 5.40390. Either you are missing a '3' (5.40389) or your calculation is wrong since you claim to be using Mills derivation. Or Mills is wrong and you have correctly used Mills derivation.

 

[Reality Check]

I've searched for a set of computations based on QM theory that can rival the simplicity, compactness and universal predictability of GUTCP. ...

Delusions about QM and GUTCP.
GUTCP is a book of Mills delusions and lies producing the wrong values and is not even a scientific theory.

A delusion that "simplicity, compactness and universal predictability" is needed for a scientific theory to be correct. What matters is not being debunked by the real world and matches to the real world.
In fact, QM does have "compactness and universal predictability", e.g. the Standard Model can be written on a tee shirt !
Simplicity of computation does not even exist in classical physics. As soon as there are more than 2 bodies, approximations and complexity begin.

 

[Reality Check]

It seems to ....

Continues blind faith in Mills' obvious delusions and lies.

 

[optiongeek]

You do not understand, optiongeek. You apply Mills delusions and get even more invalid, seemingly different values that show that Mills or your calculations are wrong .

5.4089      : as calculated by [B]optiongeek[/B]

5.4089 is not 5.40390. Either you are missing a '3' (5.40389) or your calculation is wrong since you claim to be using Mills derivation. Or Mills is wrong and you have correctly used Mills derivation.

Think you need to source that "3". I don't see it in the Eq 10.25 that appears my version of GUTCP. If you are accusing me of sloppiness, then fair enough. I've been known to transpose figures from time to time. But when you do, please make sure I'm the one who was the source of sloppiness.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Think you need to source that "3". I don't see it in the Eq 10.25 that appears my version of GUTCP. If you are accusing me of sloppiness, then fair enough. I've been known to transpose figures from time to time. But when you do, please make sure I'm the one who was the source of sloppiness.

No, he is saying that using Mills equations gives the wrong answer even if you don't make any sloppy mistakes.

 

[markie]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles#Bosons

As far as the "boson thing" goes, the only boson that isn't its own antiparticle is the W boson. Again what seems to you is trivially and demonstrably wrong. You'll have to tell all those physicists involved in interferometry that "a light 'wave' does not interfere with a light wave".

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

If a physicist actually believes that a photon can interfere with another photon, I'd like to hear about it. It's when light interacts with matter that diffraction and interference patterns can be generated. Incoming light is absorbed by an atom and reemitted in directions that need not be entirely random, leading to potential patterning.

 

[Reality Check]

Shows that Mills is incompetent at arithmetic

Think you need to source that "3....

22 January 2019 optiongeek: Shows that Mills is incompetent at arithmetic.

5.4089 as calculated by optiongeek is not equal to 5.40390 as calculated by Mills in his Big Book. Unless we assume that optiongeek missed out a "3" to make the value very close which he now denies.

 

[Reality Check]

That was the argument in favour of epicycles as well: they "worked"..

Usual "epicycles" stupidity.