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

[JeanTate]

Yes, which underscores my point ; it is not about 'interference' with other photons. Rather it is about the interaction of a single photon with the material slit apparatus. Now, the QM position would be that the single photon (or whatever particle) is interfering with itself, with it own superpositions of quantum potentiality. Either that or it is interfering with real photons from other real parallel universes. I happen to disagree, wholeheartedly.

Nice to know.

Relevance to Mill's BBoBB?

My take: yet another internal inconsistency.

 

[Reality Check]

Delusions about the shell theorem which needs the field inside the shell not uniform

Ask any competent physicist if, given a negative electrical shell (moving or not) and an positive charge in the centre, if the field inside the shell will be uniform......

23 January 2019 markie: Delusions about the shell theorem which needs the field inside the shell not uniform (actually an inverse square law).

A bit of madness in "any competent physicist" when all physicists know the shell theorem which was proved by one of the most competent physicists ever - Isaac Newton.

Ask any competent high school science student and they will say that it is the combination of the force law being inverse square and spherical geometry being square that makes the net force between the shell and the charge zero.

 

[markie]

Let's see now ...

(my hilite)

optiongeek cites "equation 1.156/1.157"; you cite "equation 1.158".

The two of your can't seem to agree on what to cite, let alone what any of the equations actually means!

Two different equations describing two different magnetic energies. If you cracked open the book you would realize that.

 

[JeanTate]

Markie has been in erroneous denial of the shell theorem for more than a year, even though he has had it explained to him again and again. He simply refuses or fails to understand that the electric field inside a thin shell araising from the shell is zero and therefore a point charge inside a thin spherical shell of any charge or no charge feels no force and it’s position is unstable. I have no idea why Markie is incorrigible on this point.

(my hilite)

I think it's a mixture of being unwilling to even consider that what's in Mills' BBoBB is wrong, in any way, combined with just enough word-level understanding of some bits of physics as to allow him to create seemingly coherent word pictures.

You can see this in action in, for example, his posts on the relationship between QM/QFT and Mills' ideas: he accepts that Mills incorporates "quantum" stuff, and creates almost sci-fi like word pictures of how Mills' "classical+quantum" ideas describe things like the two-slit experiment (the way he disses QM also reveals his pretty superficial understanding of it, or rather his multiple misunderstandings). But he sees no internal inconsistencies, in part because it's all about the word pictures, never the mathematics.

 

[JeanTate]

Two different equations describing two different magnetic energies. If you cracked open the book you would realize that.

(my hilite)

Or, in other words, what you posted is of no relevance to what optiongeek posted, despite your claim otherwise.

Right?

 

[jadebox]

You too seem to imply that the field inside a shell is uniform, no matter what is inside it. I'll continue to refuse to believe that.

And you will continue to be wrong.

If the net affect of any force inside the shell is zero at all locations inside the shell, what difference could what is in the shell make? A zero net affect it always a zero net affect on any kind of object.

 

[Reality Check]

Same deluded denial of the shell theorem and 'net force' stupidity

... There will be a 'net force' between the proton and any point on the shell surface.

23 January 2019 markie: Same deluded denial of the shell theorem and 'net force' stupidity.
A net force is the total force on a particle, in this case by the entire shell.

There will be a force between the proton and any point on the shell surface. The force from that point has an equal and opposite force from a point on the opposite side of the shell. Summing up over the shell gives a net force of zero.

A child can see that this is true for a charge at the center of the shell. The force from point on opposite sides is zero, Sum up to get the net force and we have 0 + 0 + 0 + ... = 0.

That child might guess that an off-center charge would blast through the shell (it is "closer "to the shell, opposite charges attract, so what stops the charge from being always attracted to the shell?). They would be wrong.

High school science students can understand the proof of the shell theorem that shows that a charge at any point inside the shell experiences a zero net force.

 

[JeanTate]

I've claimed that they have already 'proven it to the world'? I don't think so. They've essentially proven it to my satisfaction, but clearly not to the satisfaction to the skeptics of this forum, and certainly not to the world.
Having a goal to prove something to the world is one thing, achieving it is another.
I believe it was early 1989 when Dr. Mills first made his personal breakthrough discovery regarding hydrino. It would be a fitting 30th year anniversary for that breakthrough to send shockwaves through the world. I'm looking forward to it.

(my hilite)

Is this the same markie who wrote, just a short while earlier:

"He sent the crystal compounds out to many labs, even the Chalk River national lab in Canada. I wish I could see all those report results showing anomalous readings but afaik apart from a few universities such results have only come out indirectly via rare press interviews with a few lab researchers. Iirc one researcher described such crystal compounds as having organic attributes."

Clearly the scientists at "the Chalk River national lab in Canada" are total dolts; the most astounding revolution in physics ever, and all they did was describe "such crystal compounds as having organic attributes".

Or perhaps, just maybe, what they got to analyze was pretty boring, ordinary (non-hydrino) compounds? Or - wash my mouth out with soap! - Mills never sent them anything?!?

 

[jadebox]

There will be a force between the proton and any point on the shell surface. The force from that point has an equal and opposite force from a point on the opposite side of the shell. Summing up over the shell gives a net force of zero.

Correction .... The force has an equal and opposite force from the sum of the forces from all of the other points on the sphere and the proton.

 

[Reality Check]

Abysmal ignorance about science which includes matching the real world

What is this RC and RBF have about 'wrong' and, by implication, 'right'? .

23 January 2019 markie: Abysmal ignorance about science which includes matching the real world !

This is high school level knowledge about science. Sceince is a process that takes existing empirical evidence and uses a hypothesis to match that data. If the hypothesis does not match the empirical evidence and then it is wrong. If the hypothesis does match the empirical evidence then it is at least the start of a valid scientific theory. A scientific theory makes testable, falsifiable predictions for other and new empirical evidence. If the theory fails the tests it is invalid, i.e. wrong !

markie still does not understand that Mills lies about his "theory" matching data (ionization energies) even when we give an explicit example of QM doing better and even when Mills explicitly points out that he does not match the data !

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

 

[Reality Check]

Correction .... The force has an equal and opposite force from the sum of the forces from all of the other points on the sphere and the proton.

Yes - that has been explained to marklie maybe dozens of times. So I am not wasting my time making my replies to him technically correct. If I dumb it down enough maybe he will finally understand it.

 

[Reality Check]

Lies again about the shell theorem which has an inverse square law ...

You too seem to imply that the field inside a shell is uniform, no matter what is inside it. I'll continue to refuse to believe that.

23 January 2019 markie: Lies again about the shell theorem which has an inverse square field giving a net zero force

The shell theorem article that markie is in total denial about explicitly states that the net force is zero only for an inverse square force law. The electric/gravitational field from a point charge/mass is an inverse square law.

 

[optiongeek]

(my hilite)

Or, in other words, what you posted is of no relevance to what optiongeek posted, despite your claim otherwise.

Right?

Eq. 1.156/1.157 describe the magnetic field that exists within the orbitsphere. Eq. 1.158/159 describe the magnetic field that exists outside the orbitsphere. The two sets of equations are related. Markie simply makes the point that Mills highlights the relationship by using cos^2(theta) + sin^2(theta) for the internal field, and 4cos^2(theta) + sin^2(theta) for the external field. Nothing nefarious.

 

[Reality Check]

Points out Mills delusions about the double slit experiment yet again

Rather it is about the interaction of a single photon with the material slit apparatus.

23 January 2019 markie: Points out Mills delusions about the double slit experiment yet again.

The double slit experiment with photons works regardless of the material that makes up the slits. Light interacts differently with different materials !

markie has the insanity that each slit in a single photon double slit experiment somehow remembers what they did to previous photons and direct the one and only photon currently in the apparatus to form an interference pattern. That includes knowing what the other slit did!
Also the insanity of photons interacting with Mills delusion of photons inside the silt which is impossible classically.

Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment also makes this Mills delusion obvious.

Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment is actually several thought experiments in quantum physics, proposed by John Archibald Wheeler, with the most prominent among them appearing in 1978 and 1984.[1] These experiments are attempts to decide whether light somehow "senses" the experimental apparatus in the double-slit experiment it will travel through and adjusts its behavior to fit by assuming the appropriate determinate state for it, or whether light remains in an indeterminate state, neither wave nor particle until measured.[2]

 

[JeanTate]

Eq. 1.156/1.157 describe the magnetic field that exists within the orbitsphere. Eq. 1.158/159 describe the magnetic field that exists outside the orbitsphere. The two sets of equations are related. Markie simply makes the point that Mills highlights the relationship by using cos^2(theta) + sin^2(theta) for the internal field, and 4cos^2(theta) + sin^2(theta) for the external field.

Thanks for the clarification.

Nothing nefarious.

Indeed.

Just needless obfuscation, (deliberate?) lack of clarity, and so on.

 

[markie]

23 January 2019 markie: Same deluded denial of the shell theorem and 'net force' stupidity.
A net force is the total force on a particle, in this case by the entire shell.

There will be a force between the proton and any point on the shell surface. The force from that point has an equal and opposite force from a point on the opposite side of the shell. Summing up over the shell gives a net force of zero.

A child can see that this is true for a charge at the center of the shell. The force from point on opposite sides is zero, Sum up to get the net force and we have 0 + 0 + 0 + ... = 0.

That child might guess that an off-center charge would blast through the shell (it is "closer "to the shell, opposite charges attract, so what stops the charge from being always attracted to the shell?). They would be wrong.

High school science students can understand the proof of the shell theorem that shows that a charge at any point inside the shell experiences a zero net force.

A modification : "a charge at any point inside the shell experiences a zero net force" from the shell. This says nothing about what that charge will experience from something else that happens to be within the shell, like the elephant in the room : the proton.

 

[The Man]

A modification : "a charge at any point inside the shell experiences a zero net force" from the shell. This says nothing about what that charge will experience from something else that happens to be within the shell, like the elephant in the room : the proton.

The charge inside the shell is the proton not "something else that happens to be within the shell", pachydermata or otherwise.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

A modification : "a charge at any point inside the shell experiences a zero net force" from the shell. This says nothing about what that charge will experience from something else that happens to be within the shell, like the elephant in the room : the proton.

Which is completely irrelevant to anything anyone told you. The real elephant in the room is that you're helping a liar spread lies.

 

[hecd2]

A modification : "a charge at any point inside the shell experiences a zero net force" from the shell. This says nothing about what that charge will experience from something else that happens to be within the shell, like the elephant in the room : the proton.

So according to you there are two things inside the shell? A proton and, what? The thing which you steadfastly, ignorantly and rather stupidly refuse to acknowledge is that the proton experiences a net zero force from the shell regardless of its location within the shell, as a consequence of the shell theorem, and therefore the arrangement is unstable. Simples!

 

[markie]

23 January 2019 markie: Points out Mills delusions about the double slit experiment yet again.

The double slit experiment with photons works regardless of the material that makes up the slits. Light interacts differently with different materials !

markie has the insanity that each slit in a single photon double slit experiment somehow remembers what they did to previous photons and direct the one and only photon currently in the apparatus to form an interference pattern. That includes knowing what the other slit did!
Also the insanity of photons interacting with Mills delusion of photons inside the silt which is impossible classically.

Heavens no. Photons don't have to remember anything. The configuration of the slits has a real physical effect which in turn alters the statistical probability of where a single photon will go. (Yes we can have statistics with deterministic physics.) This will produce patterns.

The material of the slits are made up of atoms, each atom having an outer orbitsphere. The photon contacts an orbitsphere, is absorbed and reemitted in a direction that is not quite random. Now, some orbitspheres may be less prone to reemit a photon of the same energy ; that would translate into the material being less reflective. But it still would not have a bearing on the direction of the reemitted photon. The banding pattern would still emerge.