ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Brilliant Light Power , free energy , Randell Mills

Closed Thread
Old 14th January 2019, 02:06 PM   #4001
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,437
Thumbs down The obvious fact that repeating lies does not make QM or QED "seriously flawed"

Originally Posted by markie View Post
The sad fact is that most people don't know those theories are seriously flawed.
15 January 2019 markie: The obvious fact that repeating lies does not make QM or QED "seriously flawed"

QM and QED work and thus are not flawed. If a theory works by matching the real world then the theory is correct. That is how science works. QED is the most precisely matching theory that has ever existed .

The sad fact is that markie is stupidly implying any physics that he has an ignorant personal issue with is seriously flawed.

Last edited by Reality Check; 14th January 2019 at 02:08 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th January 2019, 02:24 PM   #4002
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,437
Thumbs down No "vacuum catastrophe" in Mills GUTCP insanity because Mills has insane cosmology

Originally Posted by markie View Post
For instance look up "vacuum catastrophe". Let's put it this way ; Mills GUTCP doesn't suffer from catastrophes like that.
15 January 2019 markie: No "vacuum catastrophe" in Mills GUTCP insanity because Mills has insane cosmology that denies dark energy!

The cosmological constant problem (vacuum catastrophe) happens because we have 2 valid working theories that give an energy to vacuum.
We measure that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. That is easily explained in GR by a small value of the cosmological constant. This is a vacuum energy density. The corresponding vacuum energy density from QM may be up to 60 orders of magnitude higher.

Mills has insane lies about dark energy (page 1519) not being predicted. It has been part of the Lambda-CDM model since it was discovered.GR started with a cosmological constant in 1915 (generally set to 0 because there was no evidence for it).

Mills has insane lies about textbook cosmology (bottom of xxvi Preface).

Mills has the stupidity of not explaining a fundamental part of cosmology - dark energy or the observed for 20 years acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th January 2019, 02:40 PM   #4003
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,437
Thumbs down Cannot understand basic math so replies with irrelevant gibberish

Originally Posted by markie View Post
This is not a 'fast one'....
15 January 2019 markie: Cannot understand basic math so replies with irrelevant gibberish.

That "The One-Electron Atom" sction in the document goes from "E=m.B (22)" to "The electron's magnetic moment may only be parallel or antiparallel to the magnetic field rather than at a continuum of angles including perpendicular according to Eq. (22). No continuum of energies predicted by Eq. (22) for a pure magnetic dipole are possible." via a calculation of the energy required to change [b]QM[ quantized/B] electron spin (not equation 22).

Equation 22 states that there is a continuum of angles and thus a continuum of energies. Mills deluded book does not have any theory for the "electron's magnetic moment may only be parallel or antiparallel to the magnetic field". That is Mills stupidity of including some of QM while asserting that QM is wrong.

Thus: "Mills had to pull a fast one somewhere. He did that here"

Last edited by Reality Check; 14th January 2019 at 02:42 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th January 2019, 03:35 PM   #4004
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,322
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Originally Posted by JeanTate
Wait. Let me see if I understand this claim correctly.

You are claiming that the physicists who have done thousands of experiments relevant to your claim had such a radically poor understanding of what they were doing that they didn't realize that their experiments could measure "discrete values" only, no matter how carefully they set up their experiments to avoid this? Have I got it right?
I'm not sure you're understanding.
You are correct. I do not understand the point you're trying to make.

Quote:
We well know that a magnetic dipole wants to be either parallel or antiparallel to the magnetic field.
Perhaps it would help - me - if you explain what NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) is, particularly the part about precession.

Quote:
We also know that a photon going through a polarizer will be become - polarized - in a certain direction. Discrete values. (In classical physics the polarizer plays a physical part in altering the polarization of a photon, not so with QM ; it is merely a mathematical selector from an infinite, continuous superposition of polarization states.)
Now I'm totally confused.

What does this have to do with magnetic dipoles?
JeanTate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th January 2019, 03:51 PM   #4005
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,322
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Originally Posted by JeanTate
What are the observed wavelengths (or frequencies) of such lines? What are the relative intensities?


It does?

When was 21 cm line radiation first observed, by radio astronomers? How long after the first extragalactic radio source was reported were extragalactic 21 cm HI lines observed?


Actually, I said nothing of the sort. Please stop making things up.

My hilite.

So, your "evidence" is your own, personal "would"s and "could"s. Kinda like, "trust me, I've read Mills' BBoBB, and so I know what I'm talking about".

Got it.
I'm not making it up. You have strongly implied that the hyperfine lines of hydrino should be as glaringly obvious as the 21 cm line in the cosmos if hydrinos exist.
I did not ... please check your reading comprehension.

Here's what I wrote:
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
This hydrino "21 cm line" should thus be screamingly obvious. In all directions. Yet no astronomer has ever seen it, despite there being a great many independent observations of the "mm sky".
The comparison with the HI 21 cm line is a fiction of your own creation.

Quote:
And no, I'm not making up things about the far infrared either, and Mills' book has naught to do with it.
Thanks for the admission that this is something you dreamed up by yourself.

Quote:
You should know, you're an astronomer. See for instance http://hosting.astro.cornell.edu/~sp...otivation.html
Let's see now ...

I asked: "What are the observed wavelengths (or frequencies) of such [hydrino "21 cm line"] lines? What are the relative intensities?"

Your answer? {crickets}

I asked: "It [the 21cm line stands out like a sore thumb, for good reason] does?

When was 21 cm line radiation first observed, by radio astronomers? How long after the first extragalactic radio source was reported were extragalactic 21 cm HI lines observed?
"

Your answer? {crickets}

You said "It [whether "line radiation" dominates, in the sub-mm to cm part of the electromagnetic spectrum] would depend where one is looking. If one is looking at cold dust clouds you could detect the rotation lines and the fine structure lines of certain molecules if the spectrometer was geared for those particular frequencies as it is with the Herschel space telescope. But there is the backdrop of the CMB continuum as well and of course just the far infrared continuum from slightly heated dust clouds."

I asked: "So, your "evidence" is your own, personal "would"s and "could"s."

And the source you cite for evidence seems to directly contradict what you wrote.

Interesting.
JeanTate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th January 2019, 04:14 PM   #4006
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,219
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
scientists fearing losing their livelihoods when quantum mechanics is proven to be wrong

Ahh, I love that old canard. It’s breathtaking in the scope of historical ignorance needed to support it. Thank you for giving me a chuckle by tossing it out there.

“They fear for their jobs!” The nutters, quacks, and coming men cry, when the reality is that a discovery that upsets much of what was already known OPENS UP whole new areas of research. Nobody gets funding for retreading well-worn paths. They get funding for breaking new ground.

Arguing that Mills would cost existing physicists their jobs if he were right is about as absurd as claiming that the discovery of the Americas resulted in massive unemployment for Europe’s explorers and colonists. Mills being proven right would result in a massive rush of new research and an explosion of new funding from every conceivable source.

Anyone claiming scientists are suppressing or ignoring a new theory out of fear for their jobs has, in so doing, proven they know jack squat about the scientific method.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th January 2019, 04:19 PM   #4007
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,403
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
15 January 2019 markie: A blatant "classical physics can indeed describe such patterns" lie.

Myriad wrote about the double-slit experiment. This shows that light gives a diffraction pattern for a single slit and an interference pattern for 2 slits. When done with electrons there is a band/interference pattern, however the band can be interpreted as an extremely peaked diffraction pattern.

The point about the double-slit experiment is that objects that act like particles and classically cannot produce an interface pattern, do produce an interface pattern.
  • Photons act like particles and produce an interface pattern.
  • Elections act like particles and produce an interface pattern.
  • C60 molecules (buckyballs) act like particles and produce an interface pattern.
  • Molecules with 810 atoms act like particles and produce an interface pattern.
double-slit experiment

Young's experiment is why we abandoned light as particles held for the previous 2 centuries. But then along came the photoelectric effect that showed light was particles. Then we have light acting as both particles and waves. We now have maybe dozens of "particles" acting as both particles and waves even when going through the apparatus
Hyperphysics provides a page to see both diffraction and interference on multi-slit diffraction.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ulslid.html#c2

From this page on Fraunhofer Single Slit Diffraction, the very diffraction markie refers to, one can see is just a form of interference based on the Huygens–Fresnel principle, that every point on a wave front acts a new point source.


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...nslitd.html#c1


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygen...snel_principle

ETA: A comparison

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...indoub.html#c1
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 14th January 2019 at 04:23 PM.
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th January 2019, 04:22 PM   #4008
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,974
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
On what evidence is this allegation based?
I made it up out of thin air. Same as Mills' Grand Theory of Everything Hydrino, but absurdly ridiculously simplified so as to be an argumentum ad absurdum literary devise.



Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
The best I can do is to direct you to the original post and to point out that what you're asking isn't how the burden of proof works.
Ding ding ding we have a winner! That was exactly my point in using said literary devise above! You got the exactly correct conclusion. Now apply it to Mills' scam please.


Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Have fun with that.
Ding ding ding we have another winner! The time for serious discussions about this ridiculous fraud have long since passed. Now it is just the sadist in me teasing the fools stupid enough to take Mills lies up their metaphorical rear end.

But I will be happy to get serious again and stop being such a bad person if only Markie would

Show me some evidence that Mills actually did cryo-distill dihydrino gas.

You and I both know Mills never did any such thing. It is nothing more than delusions. But until Marie retracts this lie, he gets nothing but ridicule from me.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 14th January 2019 at 04:25 PM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th January 2019, 04:30 PM   #4009
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,817
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
The line is that people thoughtlessly dismiss the fact that it's science due to stick-in-the-mud-ness, scientists fearing losing their livelihoods when quantum mechanics is proven to be wrong, and a conspiracy to harm Mills. Thoughtlessly dismissing something presented here plays in to that completely. Actually looking at it scientifically and demonstrating why it's wrong, however, achieves the opposite.
I agree that we don't want to give the impression that we are dismissing it thoughtlessly. The Mills/BLP proponents here appear to be helping with that impression at the moment by burying the thread is one liner posts. So you do have a point. But don't repeat the arguments, which runs the risk of making it look like there is a new, honest, debate to be had. Just cite them and point out they exist. Naturally it's not necessary to be 100% on this point, if you have some interest in repeating or fleshing out the arguments. I just want to avoid the risk that Mills supporters could point to this thread and say "see, we are participating in debates with scientists".

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
There's a reason why Rathke is still cited as the best argument against Mills, years after his paper was published.
And that is totally meaningless to most people. I think it's better to focus on Mill's failures to deliver on things he's promised are already finished and on the shelf. Easy to understand and doesn't raise the risk that there is valid science to be discussed here.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 14th January 2019 at 04:32 PM.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th January 2019, 04:46 PM   #4010
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,974
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
The line is that people thoughtlessly dismiss the fact that it's science due to stick-in-the-mud-ness, scientists fearing losing their livelihoods when quantum mechanics is proven to be wrong, and a conspiracy to harm Mills. Thoughtlessly dismissing something presented here plays in to that completely. Actually looking at it scientifically and demonstrating why it's wrong, however, achieves the opposite.

There's a reason why Rathke is still cited as the best argument against Mills, years after his paper was published.
No not at all actually. The best argument against what Mills is doing was Phelps Clementson 2012. Rathke actually had a couple of minor math errors, which is understandable since he was attempting to critique unicorn poop. Having never seen unicorn poop before, he had to try and decipher Mills' description of unicorn poop.

Long before you need theoretical physicists like Rathke to determine if Mills has anything, it is required to pass the judgement of experimental physicists to determine if there is some phenomenon to describe in the first place. Phelps Clementson 2012 quite soundly proved the original phenomenon Mills is attempting to describe is nothing more than quite mundane experimental error caused by splatter, oxidation, contamination, misuse of equipment and Mills poor understanding of ordinary plasma physics.

There is no phenomenon to describe that isn't already described in rather mundane and well known ways.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 14th January 2019 at 05:23 PM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th January 2019, 05:42 PM   #4011
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,643
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
[snip]
But I will be happy to get serious again and stop being such a bad person if only Markie would

Show me some evidence that Mills actually did cryo-distill dihydrino gas.

You and I both know Mills never did any such thing. It is nothing more than delusions. But until Marie retracts this lie, he gets nothing but ridicule from me.
Of course Mills and company has used cryodistillation to purify gases. This is common is chemistry. But it will be disappointing to you because Mills doesn't have a vial of liquid dihydrino gas stored at ultra cold temperatures. No, rather he and his coworkers use cryodistillation to purify gases and then test the gases for certain properties, and then the sample is ... disposed. But if you want to see some written records of such experiments here are a handful.


https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...6031990700198X
H2(1/p) gas was isolated by liquefaction of plasma gas at liquid nitrogen temperature...

Helium-hydrogen microwave plasmas have substantial He and H emission and served as sources of H2(1/4) that was liquefied by a liquid helium trap that collected it over time. Pure hydrogen microwave plasmas were found to produce H2(1/4) at a slower rate...


3.4. NMR of product H (1/4) from liquid helium trapped plasma gases
The HNMR spectra relative to tetramethylsilane(TMS) of sealed samples of liquid-helium-condensable helium-hydrogen RF plasma gases, high-voltage pulsed discharge hydrogen plasmas, and rt-plasma gases, each dissolved in an NMR solvent, are shown in Figs. 18–22. In each case, the only peak in the spectrum that could not be assigned to common species was the broad singlet peak upfield of H2 at about 1.25 ppm that matched the theoretical position of H2(1/4). The solution-phase NMR of the LHe collected plasma gas provides a definitive test of the theoretically predicted chemical shift of H2(1/4).



http://web.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/prepr...10-04_1228.pdf

The product H2 (1/ p) gas predicted to liquefaction at a
higher temperature than H2 [28]. Helium-hydrogen (90/10%)
plasma gases were flowed through a high-vacuum (10−6 Torr) capable, liquid nitrogen (LN) cryotrap, and the condensed gas was characterized by 1 H nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) of the LN- condensable gas dissolved in CDCl3.


Figure 6 (a)-(g). 1H NMR spectra on sealed samples of liquid- nitrogen-condensable helium-hydrogen plasma gases dissolved in CDCl3 relative to tetramethylsilane (TMS). The solvent peak was
observed at 7.26 ppm, the H 2 peak was observed at 4.63 ppm, and a singlet at 3.22 ppm matched silane. Singlet peaks upfield of H2 were observed at 3.47, 3.02, 2.18, 1.25, 0.85, 0.21, and -1.8 ppm relative to TMS corresponding to solvent-corrected absolute resonance shifts of -29.16, -29.61, -30.45, -31.38, -31.78, -32.42, and -34.43 ppm, respectively. Using Eq. (12), the data indicates that p = 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10, respectively. The data matched the series H2(1/2), H2(1/3), H2(1/4), H2(1/5), H2(1/6),H2(1/7),and H2(1/10).


http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

Two H(1/p) may react to form H2(1/p) that has vibrational and rotational energies that are p^2 times those of H2 comprising uncatalysed atomic hydrogen (Mills, 2004, 2006). Rotational lines were observed in the 145–300 nm region from atmospheric pressure electron-beam excited argon-hydrogen plasmas. The unprecedented energy spacing of 4^2 times that of hydrogen established the internuclear distance as 1/4 that of H2 and identified H2(1/4). H2(1/p) gas was isolated by liquefaction using an high-vacuum (10–6 Torr) capable, liquid nitrogen cryotrap and was characterised by Mass Spectroscopy (MS). The condensable gas had a higher ionisation energy than H2 by MS (Mills et al., 2005a).
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th January 2019, 05:55 PM   #4012
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,643
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
No not at all actually. The best argument against what Mills is doing was Phelps Clementson 2012. Rathke actually had a couple of minor math errors, which is understandable since he was attempting to critique unicorn poop. Having never seen unicorn poop before, he had to try and decipher Mills' description of unicorn poop.

Long before you need theoretical physicists like Rathke to determine if Mills has anything, it is required to pass the judgement of experimental physicists to determine if there is some phenomenon to describe in the first place. Phelps Clementson 2012 quite soundly proved the original phenomenon Mills is attempting to describe is nothing more than quite mundane experimental error caused by splatter, oxidation, contamination, misuse of equipment and Mills poor understanding of ordinary plasma physics.

There is no phenomenon to describe that isn't already described in rather mundane and well known ways.
It is quite something that you take Phelps' conjectures at face value as true. He has proved nothing, only given an opinion. He did not conduct experiments did he. And his conjectures were unsubstantiated. Did he, for instance, provide an explanation as to why his hypothesis of electrode 'sputtering' - in an attempt to explain the eUV as coming from deep electron ionization in metals - only occurred when hydrogen was present and not in the controls? No. It's amazing what 'skeptics' will believe so readily when it suits them.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th January 2019, 06:11 PM   #4013
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,643
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Ahh, I love that old canard. It’s breathtaking in the scope of historical ignorance needed to support it. Thank you for giving me a chuckle by tossing it out there.

“They fear for their jobs!” The nutters, quacks, and coming men cry, when the reality is that a discovery that upsets much of what was already known OPENS UP whole new areas of research. Nobody gets funding for retreading well-worn paths. They get funding for breaking new ground.

Arguing that Mills would cost existing physicists their jobs if he were right is about as absurd as claiming that the discovery of the Americas resulted in massive unemployment for Europe’s explorers and colonists. Mills being proven right would result in a massive rush of new research and an explosion of new funding from every conceivable source.

Anyone claiming scientists are suppressing or ignoring a new theory out of fear for their jobs has, in so doing, proven they know jack squat about the scientific method.
Speaking of Europe ; Rathke was paid by an agency - perhaps the ESA - to investigate Mills' claims. They were interested and wanted Rathke's assessment. Rathke later admitted on a Yahoo group that he did not want the European Space Agency to fund further investigations into Mills's findings (because that would lessen everyone else's piece of the pie). So he did his hit piece, refused to respond to Mills's rebuttal and ran. My biased view.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th January 2019, 08:40 PM   #4014
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,974
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Of course Mills and company has used cryodistillation to purify gases. This is common is chemistry. But it will be disappointing to you because Mills doesn't have a vial of liquid dihydrino gas stored at ultra cold temperatures. No, rather he and his coworkers use cryodistillation to purify gases and then test the gases for certain properties, and then the sample is ... disposed. But if you want to see some written records of such experiments here are a handful.


https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...6031990700198X
H2(1/p) gas was isolated by liquefaction of plasma gas at liquid nitrogen temperature...

Helium-hydrogen microwave plasmas have substantial He and H emission and served as sources of H2(1/4) that was liquefied by a liquid helium trap that collected it over time. Pure hydrogen microwave plasmas were found to produce H2(1/4) at a slower rate...


3.4. NMR of product H (1/4) from liquid helium trapped plasma gases
The HNMR spectra relative to tetramethylsilane(TMS) of sealed samples of liquid-helium-condensable helium-hydrogen RF plasma gases, high-voltage pulsed discharge hydrogen plasmas, and rt-plasma gases, each dissolved in an NMR solvent, are shown in Figs. 18–22. In each case, the only peak in the spectrum that could not be assigned to common species was the broad singlet peak upfield of H2 at about 1.25 ppm that matched the theoretical position of H2(1/4). The solution-phase NMR of the LHe collected plasma gas provides a definitive test of the theoretically predicted chemical shift of H2(1/4).



http://web.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/prepr...10-04_1228.pdf

The product H2 (1/ p) gas predicted to liquefaction at a
higher temperature than H2 [28]. Helium-hydrogen (90/10%)
plasma gases were flowed through a high-vacuum (10−6 Torr) capable, liquid nitrogen (LN) cryotrap, and the condensed gas was characterized by 1 H nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) of the LN- condensable gas dissolved in CDCl3.


Figure 6 (a)-(g). 1H NMR spectra on sealed samples of liquid- nitrogen-condensable helium-hydrogen plasma gases dissolved in CDCl3 relative to tetramethylsilane (TMS). The solvent peak was
observed at 7.26 ppm, the H 2 peak was observed at 4.63 ppm, and a singlet at 3.22 ppm matched silane. Singlet peaks upfield of H2 were observed at 3.47, 3.02, 2.18, 1.25, 0.85, 0.21, and -1.8 ppm relative to TMS corresponding to solvent-corrected absolute resonance shifts of -29.16, -29.61, -30.45, -31.38, -31.78, -32.42, and -34.43 ppm, respectively. Using Eq. (12), the data indicates that p = 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10, respectively. The data matched the series H2(1/2), H2(1/3), H2(1/4), H2(1/5), H2(1/6),H2(1/7),and H2(1/10).


http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

Two H(1/p) may react to form H2(1/p) that has vibrational and rotational energies that are p^2 times those of H2 comprising uncatalysed atomic hydrogen (Mills, 2004, 2006). Rotational lines were observed in the 145–300 nm region from atmospheric pressure electron-beam excited argon-hydrogen plasmas. The unprecedented energy spacing of 4^2 times that of hydrogen established the internuclear distance as 1/4 that of H2 and identified H2(1/4). H2(1/p) gas was isolated by liquefaction using an high-vacuum (10–6 Torr) capable, liquid nitrogen cryotrap and was characterised by Mass Spectroscopy (MS). The condensable gas had a higher ionisation energy than H2 by MS (Mills et al., 2005a).
OK much better. Now we have this supposed dihydrino gas that is liquified in a liquid nitrogen crytrap and that has a higher ionization energy and a different boiling point that the hydrogen/ helium liquid used to trap the dihydrino. That's the claim at least.

Now we have something serious to discuss.
1) Why wasn't a vial of this liquefied gas mixture sent off to an independent lab for verification? Why was it simply disposed of unceremoniously?
2) Why didn't Mills do a simple distillation of this trapped dihydrino/hydrogen/helium mixture to obtain pure dihydrino liquid?
3) Why didn't Mills send this distilled dihydrino to be verified by an independent lab?
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th January 2019, 09:16 PM   #4015
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,974
Originally Posted by markie View Post
It is quite something that you take Phelps' conjectures at face value as true. He has proved nothing, only given an opinion. He did not conduct experiments did he. And his conjectures were unsubstantiated. Did he, for instance, provide an explanation as to why his hypothesis of electrode 'sputtering' - in an attempt to explain the eUV as coming from deep electron ionization in metals - only occurred when hydrogen was present and not in the controls? No. It's amazing what 'skeptics' will believe so readily when it suits them.
I didn't need such explanation because the hydrogen Mills used was actually water which ionizes and makes big impressive splatters when used with welding equipment. So yes, I had no problem taking Phelps Clementson 2012 at face value. In fact anyone who ever welded under less than perfect conditions knows all about splattering....knows all about hydrogen embrittlement too... can easily see through this facade of "sciency" sounding unicorn poop. But it was nice to actually see in a journal that experimental Physicists were not fooled by the sloppy experiments Mills claims are producing dihydrino gas.

100's and maybe 1000's of hours experience inspecting welds and grinding off splatter means I don't in any way need to question Phelps Clementson 2012 regarding the splatter Mills purposely creates to obfuscate what's going on. It is painfully obvious that's happening just by watching those ridiculous youtube vids. I even said it myself multiple times long before I found Phelps Clementson 2012.

Edited to add: Or didn't you know that the agricultural research I do is actually at the scale of "hobby farm" and I am actually a retired marine engineer? You can take at face value that any marine welding done is almost certainly done under less than ideal conditions, and we fight water getting into everything and all the various forms of corrosion on a daily basis. We need to KNOW ... not think..but KNOW those welds will hold or else it could easily lead to a life or death situation. So yeah. I have staked my life on exactly the sort of knowledge Mills so glaringly lacks.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 14th January 2019 at 10:54 PM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th January 2019, 06:15 AM   #4016
UncertainH
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Anyone claiming scientists are suppressing or ignoring a new theory out of fear for their jobs has, in so doing, proven they know jack squat about the scientific method.
Interesting, here is what Lee Smolin has to say on the subject:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...1-must-evolve/

Quote:
The problems are rooted in the way the career and funding structures of the academy reward me-too science, lack of courage, entrenchment of failed research programs, legacy building, empire building, narrowness, defensive strategies and groupthink. These should be of concern to anyone in a position to craft incentives for academics, such as officers of funding agencies and foundations, university leaders and administrators, private donors. Many spoke to me and are concerned and a few are making efforts to craft incentives that reward high risk/high payoff, transformational science and avoid groupthink, low risk/low payoff and me-too science. I can mention the Templeton Foundation and FQXi as leaders in this field. But not nearly enough is being done. A first step would be to divert 10% of research funding to transformational high risk/high payoff research.
UncertainH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th January 2019, 07:35 AM   #4017
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,418
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Interesting, here is what Lee Smolin has to say on the subject:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...1-must-evolve/
Yes, because no one has been funding Mills for 30 years, and Mills has had to keep quiet for 30 years...

If you believe that, I have a deal for you...
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th January 2019, 08:30 AM   #4018
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,014
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Yes, because no one has been funding Mills for 30 years, and Mills has had to keep quiet for 30 years...

If you believe that, I have a deal for you...
I cannot speak for the technical fields as I was in Archaeology. There you lived or died based on what you found and what you published. I mean it was nice and valuable too if you published ten volumes about five digs that verified everything we already knew about the Roman colonies in Belgium and maybe found a few oddites but you would get nothing like the fellows who discovered places like Catalhuyuck, Gobekli Tepe, L'anse aux Meadows, Lucy, Hobbits or a single finger bone from a Denisovian.

In my first Anthropology 200 class in 1972 my prof said (I paraphrase) if you want tenure, people wanting you to write a book or textbook, corporate or government funding, private funding, working at the best university or getting a call from National Geographic (which at that time meant a documentary and star like status and private funding) - find something no one has ever seen before or overthrow what was thought to be correct or establish a new theory of why we are who we are.

Being successful and finding new stuff is key.
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th January 2019, 02:05 PM   #4019
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,437
Thumbs down Usual unthinking, spewing out of Mills delusions of detecting hydrinos

Originally Posted by markie View Post
Of course Mills and company has used cryodistillation to purify gases...
16 January 2019 markie: Usual unthinking, spewing out of Mills delusions of detecting hydrinos.

markie is well aware of how extraordinary Mills' hydrinos are and thus Mills needs extraordinary evidence to show that they exist. That is spectra that can only come from hydrinos. It is not spectra that an obsessed, deluded, and ignorant Mills says has to come from hydrinos.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th January 2019, 02:19 PM   #4020
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,437
Thumbs down Rather insane lies about "Phelps' conjectures"

Originally Posted by markie View Post
It is quite something that you take Phelps' conjectures at face value as true..
16 January 2019 markie: Rather insane lies about "Phelps' conjectures"
Red Baron Farms wrote
Quote:
The best argument against what Mills is doing was Phelps Clementson 2012. Rathke actually had a couple of minor math errors, which is understandable since he was attempting to critique unicorn poop
Interpretation of EUV emissions observed by Mills et al. by Phelps and Clementson
Quote:
An explanation of the so-called hydrino continuum emissions proposed by Mills and Lu, most recently in [Eur. Phys. J. D 64, 65 (2011)], is presented using conventional atomic, plasma, and discharge physics. It is argued that the observed EUV emissions during their pulsed discharges originate from transitions in ions sputtered or evaporated from the electrodes. Such an interpretation removes their justification for the introduction of hydrino particles.
...
In summary, the EUV data presented in references [1–4] can be explained in terms of conventional collision, radiation, and gas discharge processes and do not support the hydrino hypothesis [1]. A Comment on the
more general aspects of the hydrino theory has recently been published by Lawler and Goebel [20].
The "conjecture" lie is rather insane because Phelps and Clementson plot actual data and model data to show that Mills results can be explained by convectional physics.
Quote:
Fig. 1. (Color online) EUV emission data from pulsed discharge
experiments with tungsten (a) and molybdenum (b)
electrodes. The dotted curves are from figures 12a and 4a
of [4].
Quote:
Fig. 2. (Color online) EUV emission data for Mo ions. The
curve from Mills et al. for Mo is from figure 4a of [4]. The
low and high resolution curves for Mo are calculated from
NIST/ASD tables [12] assuming Gaussian line profiles with
widths (FWHM) of 0.15 and 0.01 nm, respectively.
Quote:
Fig. 3. (Color online) Spectral scans for Ta electrodes with H2,
He, and O2 fill gases from figures 3e, 3c, and 3a, respectively,
of [1]. For the He and O2 gas fills, a small background decreasing
with wavelength (such as expected for scattered light) and
≤10% of the peak pseudo-continuum at 20 nm is subtracted
from the original data.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th January 2019, 02:33 PM   #4021
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,437
Thumbs down Paranoia and stupidity about Rathke's funding

Originally Posted by markie View Post
Speaking of Europe ; Rathke was paid by an agency - perhaps the ESA - to investigate Mills' claims. ....
16 January 2019 markie: Paranoia and stupidity about Rathke's funding.

A critical analysis of the hydrino model by A Rathke (2005)
Rathke was a physicist working at the ESA Advanced Concepts Team. There is no specific funding for the paper.
This is paranoia that the ESA knows about Mills delusions and wants to address them plus the stupidity that scientists only work on agency approved topics.

Interpretation of EUV emissions observed by Mills et al. by Phelps and Clementson (2012)
Quote:
The work of A.V.P. was supported in part by JILA. The work of J.C. was preformed under the auspices of the United States Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract No. DE-AC52-07NA-27344.
markie: is the US Department of Energy paying authors to debunk Mills work?

Time-resolved hydrino continuum transitions with cutoffs at 22.8 nm and 10.1 nm by J.E. Lawler, C.J. Goebel (2012)
Quote:
To further study these continuum bands assigned to hydrinos, time resolved spectra were performed that showed a unique delay of the continuum radiation of about 0.1 μs and a duration of < 2 μs following the high-voltage pulse consistent with the mechanism of recombination to form the optimal high-density atomic hydrogen in the pinch that permits the H–H interactions to cause the hydrino transitions and corresponding emission.
markie: more authors paid to debunk Mills work?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th January 2019, 02:59 PM   #4022
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,437
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Interesting, here is what Lee Smolin has to say on the subject:
Lee Smolin's opinion is stated in the interview Troublemaker Lee Smolin Says Physics–and Its Laws–Must Evolve*..
What makes good "trouble maker" is presenting a coherent, valid argument against the stats quo. That is not Mills' obviously incoherent, invalid, obscure delusions, UncertainH.

You do not understand what you replied to or quoted, UncertainH. You replied to
Anyone claiming scientists are suppressing or ignoring a new theory out of fear for their jobs has, in so doing, proven they know jack squat about the scientific method. Smolin is talking about sociological issues, e.g. how to "craft incentives for academics" and encourage "high risk/high payoff, transformational science". Smolin is saying that there need to be more incentives to produce new theories. halleyscomet is saying that scientists do not suppress or ignore the new scientific theories that are being produced.

Once again, UncertainH, this is not Mills' obviously incoherent, invalid, obscure delusions. Mills delusions are being ignored because Mils papers are obscure. The rare occasions when Mills papers are found by scientists they see that they are obviously invalid. Obviously invalid papers are either ignored or debunked. Valid papers are cited. Mills papers are debunked or ignored.
Mills actually insane delusions are being ignored because they are in his PDF, not in his papers.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th January 2019, 02:59 PM   #4023
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,674
Originally Posted by markie View Post
A magnetic dipole 'wants' to be in alignment (parallel or antiparallel) with the magnetic flux. There is an energy difference between the parallel and antiparallel, so yes he can tell the north pole from the south pole.
Um, no. Dipoles don't "want" anything. That is childish anthropomorphism. And tha fact that your claim is baloney. In fact, science uses unaligned dipoles to track the movement of Earths magnetic poles over millions of years.
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Of course Mills and company has used cryodistillation to purify gases. This is common is chemistry. But it will be disappointing to you because Mills doesn't have a vial of liquid dihydrino gas stored at ultra cold temperatures. No, rather he and his coworkers use cryodistillation to purify gases and then test the gases for certain properties, and then the sample is ... disposed. But if you want to see some written records of such experiments here are a handful.
Please describe the disposal method paying particular attention to hydrino products resulting from such disposal. Please provide the EPA certification for any such process. Please provide the evidence that the hydrino products of such disposal are inert and harmless.

Please further explain whether Mills is releasing hydrino products illegally, or is legally releasing them because he is certified to do so.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th January 2019, 05:31 PM   #4024
HappySkeptic99
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 87
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
15 January 2019 markie: Cannot understand basic math so replies with irrelevant gibberish.

That "The One-Electron Atom" sction in the document goes from "E=m.B (22)" to "The electron's magnetic moment may only be parallel or antiparallel to the magnetic field rather than at a continuum of angles including perpendicular according to Eq. (22). No continuum of energies predicted by Eq. (22) for a pure magnetic dipole are possible." via a calculation of the energy required to change [b]QM[ quantized/B] electron spin (not equation 22).

Equation 22 states that there is a continuum of angles and thus a continuum of energies. Mills deluded book does not have any theory for the "electron's magnetic moment may only be parallel or antiparallel to the magnetic field". That is Mills stupidity of including some of QM while asserting that QM is wrong.
There are a few problems with Mill's calculation of the anomalous electron magnetic moment.

1) Mills' electron theory is not based on any known formula. Mills throws out any wave equation, and simply assumes a series of superconducting loops, at the right radius.

2) He mixes and matches known formulas, including the actual results of QM, in an ad-hoc manner, not all of which is sound.

3) The g/2 = 1 + (alpha/(2 * pi)) is indeed correct, and is while it contains the first-order loop corrections in QED, it also has a classical analog. This is well known. Mills knows that, and it is no big issue that he can write it down.

4) I don't believe the next term has any type of valid derivation. I know others have pointed out that it is not the magnetic energy. I see some questionable things myself involving relativity, and no attempt to deal with Lorentz invariance.

5) Mills does not get the right answer. Sure, it is close-ish, but it is not right. In fact the signs of the next terms past what I mentioned in (3) aren't even the same, from the actual QED theoretical calculation. I bet I could hand-wave around a few changes in constants, and get an even closer result.

The truth is, Mills does not have a coherent theory. Yes, close analytical formulas are interesting, but when they don't have a rigorous basis, and aren't actually correct, you suspect that they are a result of working backwards from the solution, not working forward from a real theory.

Last edited by HappySkeptic99; 15th January 2019 at 05:33 PM.
HappySkeptic99 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th January 2019, 07:23 PM   #4025
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,437
Originally Posted by markie View Post
A magnetic dipole 'wants' to be in alignment (parallel or antiparallel) with the magnetic flux. There is an energy difference between the parallel and antiparallel, so yes he can tell the north pole from the south pole.
Pretty much the usual ignorant gibberish from markie.

As already stated Mills starts with an equation (number 22) about a magnetic field which allows any orientation. Mills then adds his insanity of including the QM quantized electron spin which has no north or south poles .
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th January 2019, 07:30 AM   #4026
UncertainH
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Pretty much the usual ignorant gibberish from markie.

As already stated Mills starts with an equation (number 22) about a magnetic field which allows any orientation. Mills then adds his insanity of including the QM quantized electron spin which has no north or south poles .
Equation 22 is in the section describing how the Stern-Gerlach experiment is used as a boundary condition in the equations. Of course the magnetic dipole does not 'want' to make an alignment, in this section Mills is saying that in order to satisfy the boundary condition the alignment must happen. This is the boundary condition along with the condition that angular momentum is conserved. Mills agrees of course that equation 22 allows any orientation, a little later on page 98 he states
Quote:
Eq. 22 implies a continuum of energies; whereas Eq. 29 show that the static-kinetic and dynamic vector potential components of the angular momentum are quantized at h/2
This is also in chapter 1 of the book and to pull the derivations fully you need to delve deeper into other sections. A lot of this comes back to the main assumptions, that many understandably have a problem with, which are that the current at any point on the orbitsphere is multi-vectored and has a static and dynamic component and that the orbitsphere can act as a resonant cavity for photons. During the absorption or emission of a resonant photon which changes the dynamic component of the angular momentum, the static component must flip and the total must be conserved.
UncertainH is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th January 2019, 12:58 PM   #4027
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,437
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Equation 22 ....
Read what I wrote, UncertainH.
Equation 22 is not a "boundary condition". Equation 22 is the energy of a body with a magnetic moment m in a magnetic field B. It states that that energy is continuous.

Mills has the deluded lie that he is using classical physics when he includes QM quantized electron spin. That is an intrinsic property of an electron as shown by the Stern-Gerlach experiment.

It is that application of his delusion that Mills uses as a "boundary condition".

Parroting Mills delusions and lies is not good, UncertainH. The physical reasons that his bound elections as an atomic sized spherical mass and charge singularity have been listed many times.
Equation 29 at best says there is a magnetic moment in a specific direction (z) not his gibberish of "static-kinetic and dynamic vector potential components of the angular momentum are quantized at h/2". Mills has the basic error of setting a vector cross product equal to a scalar (but ends up with a vector).
Page 97 is full of Mills obviously deluded gibberish.

Last edited by Reality Check; 16th January 2019 at 01:11 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th January 2019, 04:51 PM   #4028
HappySkeptic99
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 87
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Read what I wrote, UncertainH.
Equation 22 is not a "boundary condition". Equation 22 is the energy of a body with a magnetic moment m in a magnetic field B. It states that that energy is continuous.

Mills has the deluded lie that he is using classical physics when he includes QM quantized electron spin. That is an intrinsic property of an electron as shown by the Stern-Gerlach experiment.

It is that application of his delusion that Mills uses as a "boundary condition".

Parroting Mills delusions and lies is not good, UncertainH. The physical reasons that his bound elections as an atomic sized spherical mass and charge singularity have been listed many times.
Equation 29 at best says there is a magnetic moment in a specific direction (z) not his gibberish of "static-kinetic and dynamic vector potential components of the angular momentum are quantized at h/2". Mills has the basic error of setting a vector cross product equal to a scalar (but ends up with a vector).
Page 97 is full of Mills obviously deluded gibberish.
I agree that Mills use of the quantized spin in a classical way make no sense. The measurement of spin quantization is not just about the quantization of the magnitude of the magnetic moment, but that the observable value must be along the z-direction of an external field. That last one is a purely QM result, and does not follow for a classical electron with a spin in any direction.
HappySkeptic99 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2019, 06:59 AM   #4029
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,663
Originally Posted by HappySkeptic99 View Post
There are a few problems with Mill's calculation of the anomalous electron magnetic moment.

1) Mills' electron theory is not based on any known formula. Mills throws out any wave equation, and simply assumes a series of superconducting loops, at the right radius.

2) He mixes and matches known formulas, including the actual results of QM, in an ad-hoc manner, not all of which is sound.

3) The g/2 = 1 + (alpha/(2 * pi)) is indeed correct, and is while it contains the first-order loop corrections in QED, it also has a classical analog. This is well known. Mills knows that, and it is no big issue that he can write it down.

4) I don't believe the next term has any type of valid derivation. I know others have pointed out that it is not the magnetic energy. I see some questionable things myself involving relativity, and no attempt to deal with Lorentz invariance.

5) Mills does not get the right answer. Sure, it is close-ish, but it is not right. In fact the signs of the next terms past what I mentioned in (3) aren't even the same, from the actual QED theoretical calculation. I bet I could hand-wave around a few changes in constants, and get an even closer result.

The truth is, Mills does not have a coherent theory. Yes, close analytical formulas are interesting, but when they don't have a rigorous basis, and aren't actually correct, you suspect that they are a result of working backwards from the solution, not working forward from a real theory.

Thank you, HappySkeptic99. Let me expand on your point 5 by stating the numbers. In the December 2018 edition of Mills's Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (aka the Big Book of Boo-boos), Mills is still citing experimental values published in 1987 and 1988. Those are the experimental values given here by optiongeek:

Originally Posted by optiongeek View Post
As a reminder, GUTCP produces the following equation (Eq 1.228):

g/2 = 1 + alpha/2pi + (2/3)*alpha^2*(alpha/2pi) - (4/3)*(alpha/2pi)^2

Taking alpha^1 = 137.03604 (per CRC), then by my Excel spreadsheet, I get g/2 = 1.001 159 652 121 vs. an experimental value of 1.001 159 652 188.

According to NIST's CODATA Internationally recommended 2014 values of the fundamental physical constants, as quoted by Wikipedia, the currently accepted value for α-1 is 137.035999139(31), while the best experimental measurements give an experimental value in the vicinity of α-1=137.035999173(35).

Using those values for the fine structure constant, standard QED predicts the anomalous magnetic dipole moment should be about 0.001159652182. The currently accepted experimental value is about 0.001159652181. The value of g/2 is obtained by adding 1 to those values.

Let's compare the values computed by Mills's formula, quoted by optiongeek, to the values computed using quantum mechanics:

Code:
 1.001159652188	        ; experimental value given by Mills (from 1988)
 1.0011596521214885   	; calculated by Mills
 1.0011596524667585   	; calculated by applying Mills's formula
                        ;     to the currently accepted value of α
 1.00115965218073     	; current experimental value of g/2
 1.001159652181643    	; g/2 calculated using QED
From those numbers, it is evident that
  • The value predicted by quantum mechanics is two decimal orders of magnitude closer to the current experimental value than is the value predicted by Mills's equation (1.228).
  • As the experimental estimate of the fine structure constant has improved over the past 30 years, the prediction made by Mills's equation (1.228) has gotten worse.
Mills continues to use experimental values from 30 years ago in a book whose date of copyright and publication is 2018.

If I were a skeptical reader of his book, I'd suspect he is using 30-year-old estimates because they make his equation (1.228) look better. I might even suspect he came up with his equation (1.228) by trying to find a formula that would fit the experimental estimates available when he published the first edition of his book, and is hoping people like optiongeek won't notice that his equation (1.228) is now two decimal orders of magnitude worse than the prediction made by standard quantum mechanics.

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 17th January 2019 at 07:05 AM. Reason: mistakenly thought I had gotten a least significant digit wrong
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2019, 07:56 AM   #4030
HappySkeptic99
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 87
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
[*]The value predicted by quantum mechanics is two decimal orders of magnitude closer to the current experimental value than is the value predicted by Mills's equation (1.228).[*]As the experimental estimate of the fine structure constant has improved over the past 30 years, the prediction made by Mills's equation (1.228) has gotten worse.[/list]Mills continues to use experimental values from 30 years ago in a book whose date of copyright and publication is 2018.

If I were a skeptical reader of his book, I'd suspect he is using 30-year-old estimates because they make his equation (1.228) look better. I might even suspect he came up with his equation (1.228) by trying to find a formula that would fit the experimental estimates available when he published the first edition of his book, and is hoping people like optiongeek won't notice that his equation (1.228) is now two decimal orders of magnitude worse than the prediction made by standard quantum mechanics.
True. If he worked backward from the result, he can't fix it now.

I would like to fix one comment I made.

"In fact the signs of the next terms past what I mentioned in (3) aren't even the same, from the actual QED theoretical calculation."

I missed that one should actually rearrange Mills' formula:

g/2 = 1 + alpha/2pi + (2/3)*alpha^2*(alpha/2pi) - (4/3)*(alpha/2pi)^2

The formula should be refactored to make a power series in (alpha/2pi).

g/2 = 1 + alpha/2pi - (4/3)*(alpha/2pi)^2 + (8/3)*pi^2*(alpha/2pi)^3

Then, the signs are the same as in the QM calculation (but not the values). People should realize how easy it is to tweak a value, when the final term (quite small) can be made almost any value via fractions and an irrational pi.
HappySkeptic99 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2019, 08:21 AM   #4031
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,407
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
If I were a skeptical reader of his book, I'd suspect he is using 30-year-old estimates because they make his equation (1.228) look better. I might even suspect he came up with his equation (1.228) by trying to find a formula that would fit the experimental estimates available when he published the first edition of his book, and is hoping people like optiongeek won't notice that his equation (1.228) is now two decimal orders of magnitude worse than the prediction made by standard quantum mechanics.
If I were a skeptical reader of the book, I'd point out that this approach ("trying to find a formula") has been done, and done better, while making it clear that the result should not be taken seriously.

This paper establishes that $$G = \frac{10390 e^{2} R^{73} w^{73}}{23 A^2 c^{68} N^{73} h^{74}}$$ determines G to about 1 part per trillion. As the paper states,
Quote:
Summary: If the units are correct and the values are correct, what other criteria is needed?

Last edited by WhatRoughBeast; 17th January 2019 at 08:23 AM.
WhatRoughBeast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2019, 08:45 AM   #4032
optiongeek
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 79
Originally Posted by HappySkeptic99 View Post
There are a few problems with Mill's calculation of the anomalous electron magnetic moment.

1) Mills' electron theory is not based on any known formula. Mills throws out any wave equation, and simply assumes a series of superconducting loops, at the right radius.

2) He mixes and matches known formulas, including the actual results of QM, in an ad-hoc manner, not all of which is sound.

3) The g/2 = 1 + (alpha/(2 * pi)) is indeed correct, and is while it contains the first-order loop corrections in QED, it also has a classical analog. This is well known. Mills knows that, and it is no big issue that he can write it down.

4) I don't believe the next term has any type of valid derivation. I know others have pointed out that it is not the magnetic energy. I see some questionable things myself involving relativity, and no attempt to deal with Lorentz invariance.

5) Mills does not get the right answer. Sure, it is close-ish, but it is not right. In fact the signs of the next terms past what I mentioned in (3) aren't even the same, from the actual QED theoretical calculation. I bet I could hand-wave around a few changes in constants, and get an even closer result.

The truth is, Mills does not have a coherent theory. Yes, close analytical formulas are interesting, but when they don't have a rigorous basis, and aren't actually correct, you suspect that they are a result of working backwards from the solution, not working forward from a real theory.
I appreciate you and W.D. Clinger taking a serious look at the derivation leading up to 1.228 and you raise some valid, but IMHO not entirely consequential concerns. In particular, the second term is in fact the energy stored in the electric field. The important factor here, 2/3, comes from the integral solved in equation 1.156/1.157. This result comes from the electrodynamics of the orbitsphere, which was designed to match the boundary condition of the Stern-Gerlach experiment. Mills didn't start out trying to calculate the correct value for the spin flip, he started out trying to match the Stern Gerlach. It just so happened that when he did, the Poynting theorem provided a value for the spin flip that matched experiment. That's the fundamental obstacle you need to overcome to disprove Mills' derivation.

Now, let's take a look at the similar derivation for the QFT version. Can anyone even explain what's going on here? Take any of the criticisms you have leveled at Mills and apply it fairly to the QFT derivation and see how it does. By my reckoning, the QFT is a hopeless jumble of arbitrary decisions far removed from understandable physics. To take just one example, it requires thousands of numerical integrations, but the convergence criteria for these seem to be designed to suit the desired results. I don't find that particularly convincing. Rather, I find it more likely that starving doctoral students needed a particular result in order to get funding to attend a conference. You (and W.D. Clinger) imply that Mills can get any result he wants by jiggering the math. However, I find that explanation far more descriptive of the QFT approach.

In terms of the accuracy of the equations, I have no basis to judge the relative claims of experimentalists on how accurate their measurements are. All I can do is assess the potential motives and at what point they hit diminishing returns in terms of credibility when claiming ever increasing levels of confidence.
optiongeek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2019, 09:37 AM   #4033
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,663
Originally Posted by optiongeek View Post
I appreciate you and W.D. Clinger taking a serious look at the derivation leading up to 1.228 and you raise some valid, but IMHO not entirely consequential concerns. In particular, the second term is in fact the energy stored in the electric field.
As HappySkeptic99 said, the first two terms are classical correct and have a classical analogue.

I am also aware that equations (1) through (12) of Box 1.1 on page 95 were cribbed from Purcell's Electricity and Magnetism, first edition, chapter 10. That was the textbook used in the freshman-level course I took, so I am aware that Mills has taken Purcell's calculations for magnetic fields in bulk matter with only one orientation, ignoring Purcell's comments and calculations that go on to integrate over all orientations permitted by classical physics:

Originally Posted by Purcells
We have considered only orbits perpendicular to B. Our conclusion should apply, roughly speaking, to a third of the electron orbits in a substance, there being three mutually perpendicular directions. What happens to orbits lying parallel to the xz planes and yz planes is interesting, and you can find out by working Prob. 10.22.

I am also aware that Mills ignored what Purcells had to say about the one-electron case:

Originally Posted by Purcells
Electron spin is a quantum phenomenon....There is no point in trying to devise a classical model of this object; its properties are essentially quantum mechanical.
Mills is cherry-picking classical equations from freshman-level textbooks and pretending they apply to the one-electron case even when those same textbooks explain what goes wrong with those classical equations in the one-electron case.

Originally Posted by optiongeek View Post
By my reckoning, the QFT is a hopeless jumble of arbitrary decisions far removed from understandable physics.
You should show your reckoning. As things stand, it's your word against not only the professional physicists, but your word against rudimentary spot-checking by non-physicists such as myself who find errors in your claims every time we bother to check.

For example:

Originally Posted by optiongeek View Post
To take just one example, it requires thousands of numerical integrations, but the convergence criteria for these seem to be designed to suit the desired results.
False.

The first four terms of the QED formula are known analytically, so no numerical integrations are needed to obtain results that are considerably more accurate than the four-term formula given by Mills.

Originally Posted by optiongeek View Post
All I can do is assess the potential motives and at what point they hit diminishing returns in terms of credibility when claiming ever increasing levels of confidence.
We can do that too, optiongeek.

What am I to make of your credibility, when I find errors in almost everything you say?

To be fair, you are mostly repeating errors made by your hero.

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 17th January 2019 at 09:53 AM. Reason: see strikeout
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2019, 12:48 PM   #4034
jadebox
Graduate Poster
 
jadebox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,665
Originally Posted by optiongeek View Post
In terms of the accuracy of the equations, I have no basis to judge the relative claims of experimentalists on how accurate their measurements are. All I can do is assess the potential motives and at what point they hit diminishing returns in terms of credibility when claiming ever increasing levels of confidence.
Well, with that statement you totally lost any hint of credibility that you may have been hanging on to.

BTW, there is a way to address motives, credibility, and estimates of levels of confidence to help ensure that we get closer to the truth. It is a process called "science."

Real science is a process which includes things like peer review and replication. It isn't just making up crap and producing flashy videos.

Last edited by jadebox; 17th January 2019 at 12:52 PM.
jadebox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2019, 01:47 PM   #4035
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 14,168
Originally Posted by jadebox View Post
Well, with that statement you totally lost any hint of credibility that you may have been hanging on to.

BTW, there is a way to address motives, credibility, and estimates of levels of confidence to help ensure that we get closer to the truth. It is a process called "science."

Real science is a process which includes things like peer review and replication. It isn't just making up crap and producing flashy videos.
But it's so shiny!
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2019, 03:03 PM   #4036
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,674
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
But it's so shiny!
Remember. that is always the most important consideration.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2019, 04:49 PM   #4037
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,437
Originally Posted by optiongeek View Post
...This result comes from the electrodynamics of the orbitsphere, which was designed to match the boundary condition of the Stern-Gerlach experiment.
This incorrect, optiongeek.

One of Mills delusions as stated several times is that he can cherry pick parts of QM and include them with classical physics. The classical physics Mills abuses is the electrodynamics of his deluded orbitsphere. Mills takes quantized QM spin and announces that his orbitsphere has quantized QM spin. Mills then has the fantasy that this explains the Stern-Gerlach experiment.

Mills "STERN-GERLACH-EXPERIMENT BOUNDARY CONDITIONS" section (page 66, 2016 edition) is his fantasies that are irrelevant to the experiment + the experiment result that electrons have intrinsic, quantized spin.

FYI, optiongeek.
Mills' orbitsphere is deluded because this is an electron.
Mills' orbitsphere is an atom sized mass and change spherical singularity.
An extended electron with its measured spin will have a surface that is moving faster than the speed of light (one reason that electrons are treated as point particles with intrinsic spin).
The Geiger–Marsden experiments between 1908 and 1913 did not have alpha particles scattering off 79 charged gold atom sized spheres !

Mils' abuse of classical physics is taking the non-radiation condition for a collection of point particles and applying it to his fantasy of currents on a sphere.

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th January 2019 at 04:54 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2019, 07:39 PM   #4038
optiongeek
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 79
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
An extended electron with its measured spin will have a surface that is moving faster than the speed of light (one reason that electrons are treated as point particles with intrinsic spin).
According to equation 1.35, the charge velocity in the bound electron is

v = h_bar/(m x r_e) = alpha * c

No violation of speed of light.
optiongeek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2019, 08:32 PM   #4039
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,437
Originally Posted by optiongeek View Post
According to equation 1.35, ...
"An extended electron with its measured spin will have a surface that is moving faster than the speed of light" is not Mils "charge velocity" insanity, optiongeek.

This is actual spin in physics.
Quote:
The physical interpretation of Pauli's "degree of freedom" was initially unknown. Ralph Kronig, one of Landé's assistants, suggested in early 1925 that it was produced by the self-rotation of the electron. When Pauli heard about the idea, he criticized it severely, noting that the electron's hypothetical surface would have to be moving faster than the speed of light in order for it to rotate quickly enough to produce the necessary angular momentum. This would violate the theory of relativity. Largely due to Pauli's criticism, Kronig decided not to publish his idea.
Mills says that the electron has that same angular momentum by assigning his delusion the QM spin. The charge on his delusion has to have the speed given by that angular momentum because his surface is that charge !

This is an electron. optiongeek. Pauli probably used the classical electron radius in the above calculation. We know today that the electron is much smaller (a suggested upper limit of 10-22 meters).

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th January 2019 at 08:36 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th January 2019, 08:47 PM   #4040
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,437
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
FYI, optiongeek.
Mills' orbitsphere is deluded because this is an electron.
Mills' orbitsphere is an atom sized mass and change spherical singularity.
An extended electron with its measured spin will have a surface that is moving faster than the speed of light (one reason that electrons are treated as point particles with intrinsic spin).
The Geiger–Marsden experiments between 1908 and 1913 did not have alpha particles scattering off 79 charged gold atom sized spheres !
If you read the rest of this unfortunately long thread you will also see that Mills is deluded because he ignores some basic classical physics, optiongeek.

This is the shell theorem
Quote:
2.If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell.
The same applies to any inverse square law, e.g. between a charged shell and an interior charge. Mills delusion in this electrostatic treatment has an atomic nucleus that cannot stay inside his "electrons". Any perturbation and the nucleus blasts through his shells. A rational, knowledgeable person would address this fatal flaw.

Try to find "shell theorem" in Mills' deluded and lying book!

FYI, optiongeek.
Many items of ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book and a paper
Part VII (June 2018): Mills' delusions of a "fifth force", "trapped photons", proton radius lie, etc.
28 June 2018: Page 57: Footnote 1 explicitly states "The orbitsphere has zero thickness, but...", i.e. a spherical mass and change singularity.
28 June 2018: Page 57: The "but..." in footnote 1 is the inane application of the Schwarzschild radius equation for the gravitational field outside of a massive body.
29 June 2018: Page 276: The insanity of scattering of electrons as plane waves hitting a spherical He atom.
2 July 2018: Page 1557: Mills blatant insanity of pseudoelectrons
3 July 2018: Page 393 onward: Equation 11.5 and 11.6 are the differential equations of motion for a particle of mass m in the case of a central field when he has spheres around 2 nuclei.
17 July 2018: Page 152: Mills lies that a hydrogen atom recoils on emitting a photon because he disconnects the electron from the proton.
17 July 2018: Page 155: Mills lies that his predicted value agrees with the experimental value of the hydrogen Lamb shift
17 July 2018: Page 1640: Mills insanity of obvious lying about Aspect et al. (1982) (the 2nd of 15 tests of Bell's theorem).
18 July 2018: Page 1411: Mills writes a fairy story about two of his electron delusions giving the Pauli exclusion principle.
18 July 2018: Page 1411: Insane Bose-Einstein gibberish, e.g. ignores most bosons, "electron resonator cavities" insanity.
25 July 2018: Page 155: Mills lies that Mohr et. al. have 1057.845 MHz as the hydrogen Lamb shift.
26 July 2018: Page 155: "1057.09 MHz" ignorance about basic scientific scholarship.
30 November 2018: Page 1623: Alpha decay lies and delusions
3 December 2018: Page 1617: Mills' actual insanity of the strong nuclear interaction being electromagnetic in origin.
6 December 2018: Page 1700 onward: Irrelevancy about the self-energy of 2D charged layers.
6 December 2018: Page 1701: A blatant "Quantum mechanics is internally inconsistent" lie.
6 December 2018: Page 1702 to 1704: Derives the shell theorem (and does not state its name) and then a lie.
6 December 2018: Page 1705: An obvious "self energy" lie and usual delusions.

Mills' deluded book has tables where he gets every ionization energy he calculates wrong !

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th January 2019 at 09:00 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:05 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.