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

Reply
Old 21st October 2020, 03:39 AM   #921
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,488
The latest allegations are that external field trials will likely start later this year. We'll see if that actually happens and, if it does, how independent those actually are.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2020, 06:18 AM   #922
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 750
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
The latest allegations are that external field trials will likely start later this year. We'll see if that actually happens and, if it does, how independent those actually are.
"later this year" They better hurry up.
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2020, 07:19 AM   #923
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,030
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
"later this year" They better hurry up.

They must mean "later in 2017," right?
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2020, 06:00 PM   #924
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 94,813
More videos put up on YouTube, looks like he is taking up a new hobby, string art

https://youtu.be/3Q14wA5f9b4
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2020, 08:22 PM   #925
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 24,652
At least it's more interesting than watching water boil.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2020, 02:46 AM   #926
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,488
TIL that electron fields are gay. Or that they support the NHS. It's hard to tell these days.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2020, 03:20 PM   #927
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 94,813
More string art:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


I’m now appreciating why this has taken so long to be commercially ready. In the 70s I loved making string art pictures, but they took an age to make since you had to individually hammer in all the tacks, then “weave” all the strings. No wonder it took so long to do stop motion animation using a new string picture for each frame.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2020, 04:05 PM   #928
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 15,031
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
More string art:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


I’m now appreciating why this has taken so long to be commercially ready. In the 70s I loved making string art pictures, but they took an age to make since you had to individually hammer in all the tacks, then “weave” all the strings. No wonder it took so long to do stop motion animation using a new string picture for each frame.
Ehn, like a lot of movie directors spending more time and effort on pure imagery rather than on the script. A time varying magnetic field produces a time varying electrical field. Yet when they say the magnetic field becomes an electric field they seem to be implying that it becomes a static electrical field (as indicated by the imagery). That is, at least until they suddenly just don't anymore. By claiming it then is now a variation in charge density of the electron shell. Which of course would be a time varying electric field (also supported by the imagery). Looks like they forgot to hire a continuity supervisor.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th October 2020, 05:29 AM   #929
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,964
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Ehn, like a lot of movie directors spending more time and effort on pure imagery rather than on the script. A time varying magnetic field produces a time varying electrical field. Yet when they say the magnetic field becomes an electric field they seem to be implying that it becomes a static electrical field (as indicated by the imagery). That is, at least until they suddenly just don't anymore. By claiming it then is now a variation in charge density of the electron shell. Which of course would be a time varying electric field (also supported by the imagery). Looks like they forgot to hire a continuity supervisor.
...Or anyone with even basic scientific knowledge.
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2020, 02:51 AM   #930
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,488
Does anybody have any thoughts on this? It's someone who claims to be a physicist explaining why Mill's theory is superior to quantum mechanics. There's a lot of waffle, but also some actual maths.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2020, 04:01 AM   #931
paiute
Graduate Poster
 
paiute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,366
Yeah - real confident in this 'physicist'

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Does anybody have any thoughts on this? It's someone who claims to be a physicist explaining why Mill's theory is superior to quantum mechanics. There's a lot of waffle, but also some actual maths.
From the link:
"All the math in CQM is classical physics with no new equations, whereas the wave
function of SQM is determined using something called the Shroedinger [sic] equation.
The Shroedinger [sic] equation bears no relationship to classical physics."

Need I say more?
__________________
A Novel and Efficient Synthesis of Cadaverine
Organic chemistry, vengeful ghosts, and high explosives. What could possibly go wrong?
Now free for download!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36568510/A...-of-Cadaverine
paiute is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2020, 05:49 AM   #932
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 21,128
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Does anybody have any thoughts on this? It's someone who claims to be a physicist explaining why Mill's theory is superior to quantum mechanics. There's a lot of waffle, but also some actual maths.
Sure. There are no authors. There are no references. And the final line is...
Quote:
The SQM emperor has no clothes. And the critics are just spouting gibberish.
Which has no place in any learned publication.

I feel no urge to accept the word of some anonymous nobody with no references who hurls insult in what is purported to be or pretending to be a scientific paper.

It seems to me that these clowns have learned the format but not the content, or citations, or references, or peer review, or even basic science.

Well, I just trash it. In the eternal bitbucket it goes.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2020, 05:57 AM   #933
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,488
If you're talking about the spelling of the name, then "oe" is an acceptable way to write "ö" without umlauts. It's more correct than simply omitting the umlauts and writing "o". It's often done to Anglicise Germanic names and words.

If that's not what you're talking about, then surely it isn't a surprise that a proponent of Mills' theory would be seeking to use classical physics on a quantum scale?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2020, 05:58 AM   #934
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,488
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Sure. There are no authors. There are no references. And the final line is...


Which has no place in any learned publication.

I feel no urge to accept the word of some anonymous nobody with no references who hurls insult in what is purported to be or pretending to be a scientific paper.

It seems to me that these clowns have learned the format but not the content, or citations, or references, or peer review, or even basic science.

Well, I just trash it. In the eternal bitbucket it goes.
It's not claiming to be a scientific paper, but is instead part of a discussion.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2020, 06:01 AM   #935
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 94,813
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
It's not claiming to be a scientific paper, but is instead part of a discussion.
Somewhere in this thread or its predecessors you’ll find that’s all been addressed many times, but sorry no idea specifically where!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2020, 06:10 AM   #936
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 21,128
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
It's not claiming to be a scientific paper, but is instead part of a discussion.
But there is nothing to discuss. BLP is a scam.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2020, 07:13 AM   #937
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 5,145
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Sure. There are no authors. There are no references. And the final line is...
Quote:
The SQM emperor has no clothes. And the critics are just spouting gibberish.
hahahahaha They borrowed that one 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
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2020, 07:34 AM   #938
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,488
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Somewhere in this thread or its predecessors you’ll find that’s all been addressed many times, but sorry no idea specifically where!
I don't think so. This isn't actually from Mills, this is someone else trying to make sense of Mills in order to justify their own belief. The formulae are their own.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2020, 09:59 AM   #939
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,977
I think you're going to have to defend that paper yourself if you want anyone to engage. It's surprising people even bothered clicking the link. What's your interest in that apparent piece of drech?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2020, 05:31 PM   #940
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,488
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
I think you're going to have to defend that paper yourself if you want anyone to engage.
This seems a silly thing to say, and based on a silly assumption that is contradicted by easily available evidence.

Quote:
It's surprising people even bothered clicking the link.
Is it, though? I'd have thought that anybody who chooses to come in to this thread has some interest in the subject. A previously silent player offering a new take on it is something I'd think people who are interested in the subject might be interested in.

Quote:
What's your interest in that apparent piece of drech?
My interest is in seeing what people with greater physics/mathematics knowledge/ability than me have to say about it. Everybody's entitled to just hand-wave it away, but it doesn't seem like the most sceptical approach, nor like the approach that I'd expect from people who are actually interested in the subject - which, as above, is what I'd expect from people bothering to come in to this thread.

As it is, another commentator on another site, who is a physicist, found 5 errors in it. I'm interested to see if people here concur or maybe even find more. If the only responses are along the lines of "how dare you post something? I'm above looking at anything to do with this topic", then I'm just left wondering what the point of this thread is at all.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2020, 05:59 PM   #941
paiute
Graduate Poster
 
paiute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,366
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post


My interest is in seeing what people with greater physics/mathematics knowledge/ability than me have to say about it.
If you can't spell Schrödinger I am not going to waste my valuable time here on this earth reading what you think you have to say about QM.
__________________
A Novel and Efficient Synthesis of Cadaverine
Organic chemistry, vengeful ghosts, and high explosives. What could possibly go wrong?
Now free for download!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36568510/A...-of-Cadaverine
paiute is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2020, 07:40 PM   #942
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,977
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
My interest is in seeing ...
Mills Trolls love to create threads where it appears people are engaging with Mills ideas based on Mills science. It gives Mills a chance to cherry pick threads and claim that his ideas, even if not accepted, warrant debate among the science community. That should be avoided.

Mills is an obvious con man. No thread about him should go more than a few posts without emphasizing that.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2020, 01:27 AM   #943
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,488
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Mills Trolls love to create threads where it appears people are engaging with Mills ideas based on Mills science.
Yes, there's the silly assumption.

Quote:
It gives Mills a chance to cherry pick threads and claim that his ideas, even if not accepted, warrant debate among the science community. That should be avoided.
Can you provide evidence of one instance where he has done this? Can you also explain a) why Mills shut down his official discussion forum, and b) his followers stopped visiting this thread when they discovered that the people posting here were more knowledgeable about science than they were? If what you're saying were true, then you would expect the behaviour we see to be the opposite of that, wouldn't you?

Quote:
Mills is an obvious con man. No thread about him should go more than a few posts without emphasizing that.
Yet here you are, posting on page 24 of part 4 of a thread started 4 years ago. If you think only the first few posts should exist, then perhaps you should have stopped visiting this thread by now. Telling other people how and what they should post seems a little extra.

As it is, given that this is a discussion forum dedicated to scepticism and critical thinking, I'd have thought that discussing cons was one of the reasons for the forum's existence, and one thing that the majority of posters have in common as an interest. The idea that such things shouldn't be discussed bar uncritical hand-waving away seems to run counter to the entire purpose of the board and be antithetical to the very idea of scepticism.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2020, 02:46 AM   #944
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 31,687
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Does anybody have any thoughts on this? It's someone who claims to be a physicist explaining why Mill's theory is superior to quantum mechanics. There's a lot of waffle, but also some actual maths.
Well, for a start he's simply replicating the Bohr model for the single electron atom. He gets the ionization energies right, but that's a well-known result. The model completely fails to predict anything that might give rise to spectral emission or absorption lines, so it starts off by failing immediately. He then goes on to determine the binding energy for the second electron by starting from the assumption that adding it has no effect on the orbit of the first electron, thus ignoring the existence of the three-body problem due to Coulomb repulsion. Implicit in this assumption is also the assumption that the orbital radii of the two electrons are different, so it's unsurprising that he goes on to derive a difference in the orbital radii for the two electrons. Next, the reader decides his time would be spent making himself a cup of coffee than by reading any more of this ****, and he wanders off to the kitchen to do so.

That's the full and frank assessment of this particular physicist.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2020, 02:54 AM   #945
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 94,813
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I don't think so. This isn't actually from Mills, this is someone else trying to make sense of Mills in order to justify their own belief. The formulae are their own.
It's not new new - if you get what I mean, others have argued from the same place and I think it was Jeantate (sp?) and one other that especially went over it.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2020, 07:48 AM   #946
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,977
:: sigh ::
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Yet here you are, posting on page 24 of part 4 of a thread started 4 years ago. If you think only the first few posts should exist,
Read the second half of my sentence you quoted.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
As it is, given that this is a discussion forudedicated to scepticism and critical thinking, I'd have thought that discussing cons was one of the reasons for the forum's existence...
I didn't say not to discuss it. I said don't let it look we're taking Mills seriously.

You might recall my first suggestion was that you defend the paper. You know, actually discuss it, make it look interesting by explaining why it's interesting. It was a suggestion for getting the conversation you say you want. You need to be the other side of the conversation.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2020, 01:19 PM   #947
HappySkeptic99
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Does anybody have any thoughts on this? It's someone who claims to be a physicist explaining why Mill's theory is superior to quantum mechanics. There's a lot of waffle, but also some actual maths.
I'm not sure of the derivation of the magnetic force, but I won't dwell on that.

The first problem is that Mills doesn't get the correct results for Helium, where QM does. The second is the bizarre idea of the spherical electron shells themselves. They simply make no sense by any classical or quantum construction.

The spherical shells are an attempt to reify the quantum wavefunction into a physical object that is infinitely thin. This is just the Bohr model with shells of charge instead of orbiting electrons. Instead of the QM wavefunction that has a z-component, Mill's just sticks the shell at the expectation radius. It is easy to show that all these methods will give about the same result for a Hydrogen atom.

Mills' shell is made up of hoops, that themselves follow quantum rules of wave periodicity, yet somehow the set of hoops have no varying electric or magnetic field. i.e., no hoops interact with each other to create any sort of consistent field equation. However, the hoops somehow repel in order to create the thin shell, but don't follow rules of physics for orbiting a charged nucleus. Neither a shell nor a hoop has a stable orbit about a central body with any 1/R^2 field.

With Helium, Mills also treats the entire shell as a solid object, that only interacts with the other electron as single solid thing. QM gets the exact answer for Helium, and Mills doesn't. Yes, the QM calculation is difficult, but it can be written down analytically, even if a computer is needed to solve some terms. This is enough to invalidate Mills.

The QM result for He, having each atom at equal energy, is perfectly consistent. It works just fine, despite their stupid arguments. It requires the 2 electrons to interact, and the anti-symmetry of the situation requires identical energies. Yes, the Pauli exclusion principle was an ad-hoc thing at the time, but it has proven correct. And, rather than being some random piece of theory, I believe it can be seen to be emergent from energy minimization considerations, and does not need to be seen as a new law.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2020, 04:57 PM   #948
HappySkeptic99
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by HappySkeptic99 View Post
... The QM result for He, having each atom electron at equal energy, is perfectly consistent.
I meant electron of course.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2020, 06:50 AM   #949
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,488
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Well, for a start he's simply replicating the Bohr model for the single electron atom. He gets the ionization energies right, but that's a well-known result. The model completely fails to predict anything that might give rise to spectral emission or absorption lines, so it starts off by failing immediately. He then goes on to determine the binding energy for the second electron by starting from the assumption that adding it has no effect on the orbit of the first electron, thus ignoring the existence of the three-body problem due to Coulomb repulsion. Implicit in this assumption is also the assumption that the orbital radii of the two electrons are different, so it's unsurprising that he goes on to derive a difference in the orbital radii for the two electrons. Next, the reader decides his time would be spent making himself a cup of coffee than by reading any more of this ****, and he wanders off to the kitchen to do so.

That's the full and frank assessment of this particular physicist.

Dave
That's the kind of thing I was after. Thanks.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2020, 06:52 AM   #950
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,488
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
I said don't let it look we're taking Mills seriously.
I'm not sure how pointing out that something is bollocks is taking it seriously.

Quote:
You might recall my first suggestion was that you defend the paper. You know, actually discuss it, make it look interesting by explaining why it's interesting. It was a suggestion for getting the conversation you say you want. You need to be the other side of the conversation.
I think it's bollocks. I've also explicitly said that neither my maths nor my physics is good enough to fully engage with it.

Why, given those two facts, would I attempt to defend it?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

Last edited by Squeegee Beckenheim; 14th November 2020 at 06:53 AM.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2020, 06:55 AM   #951
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,488
Originally Posted by HappySkeptic99 View Post
The QM result for He, having each atom at equal energy, is perfectly consistent. It works just fine, despite their stupid arguments. It requires the 2 electrons to interact, and the anti-symmetry of the situation requires identical energies. Yes, the Pauli exclusion principle was an ad-hoc thing at the time, but it has proven correct. And, rather than being some random piece of theory, I believe it can be seen to be emergent from energy minimization considerations, and does not need to be seen as a new law.
This is interesting, and is not an argument I've before seen used against the Millsian claim of quantum mechanics just consisting of fudge factors.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2020, 07:07 PM   #952
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,523
Originally Posted by paiute View Post
From the link:
"All the math in CQM is classical physics with no new equations, whereas the wave
function of SQM is determined using something called the Shroedinger [sic] equation.
The Shroedinger [sic] equation bears no relationship to classical physics."

Need I say more?
No more need to be said to identify an abysmally ignorant "physicist". They cannot even spell Schrödinger!
The first couple of pages look like some of Miller's insanity from his book.
  • The author(s) write the stupidity that solutions for the He atom are "complex curve fitting protocols". The He solutions are approximate solutions of the Schrödinger equation with no curve fitting
  • A stupid lie that classical laws before 1872 can describe He - classically electrons in orbit emit radiation and spiral into the nucleus.
  • An ignorant lie that CQM was accepted as valid by peer reviewers. Journal peer reviewers do not validate equations or computations. They look for obvious flaws within the paper.
  • A "peer reviewed by highly regarded members of the physics community" fantasy when the author(s) should not know who peer reviewed their uncited papers.
  • The delusion of electrons being shells surrounding the nucleus when they let through charged particles with no effects . Add more stupidity of the nucleus exploding thru these shells because they exert no net force on it.
  • Insanity of no uncertainty in CQM when this is a fact even in classic physics (Heisenberg's microscope - classic optics derives an approximate expression of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle).
  • A deluded lie that the 2 electrons in He are identical in QM and the real world. They have opposite spin.
  • "Point 5 above is amazing" gibberish repeating the lie along with their curve fitting delusion.
  • An insane "all spectroscopic information is only consistent with the CQM model" lie when spectroscopic information supports QM.
  • A "no Pauli Exclusion Principle" delusion when the structure of atomic electrons requires the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
The mathematical physics insanity starts with equation 1. This is the delusion of electrons being of "rings" of matter orbiting the nucleus like planets around the Sun. Everyone knows that theses are unstable for the simple reason that solid rings around a body are not actually orbiting it ! There is no net force between the ring and the central body.
A deluded equation 3 is made up for the velocity of the imafgainsry ring with the quantum mechanical Planck's constant. Any time that Planck's constant appears they are lying about this being classical physics !
Equation 4 is the quantum mechanical Bohr radius which is 5.29177210903(80)×10−11 m
Mills' insanity of a table of 1 electron system ionization energies that do not match the experimental values !
The insanity of introducing quantum mechanical spin s that does not exist in classical physics!
Mills' insanity of a table of 2 electron system ionization energies that do not match the experimental values !

Last edited by Reality Check; 15th November 2020 at 07:30 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2020, 10:39 PM   #953
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,865
Apart from the physics errors, which I'm not really qualified to address and have been pointed out repeatedly, Mills also fails at logically extrapolating and predicting.
He refuses to commit whether his 'hydrino' behaves like dark matter, and thus does not interact with matter at all, or whether it will from some new chemical bond.

There is also the fact that the conditions needed to start his putative severely exothermic reaction are easily met in nature. Ocean rifts for instance would contain the liquid metal and energy needed, and thus by his theory should be near constant nuclear explosion. We just do not see that.

Like any other pseudo science, the entire concept falls apart the moment you extrapolate beyond the carefully constructed framework of the author, though in Mill's case it also falls apart within that framework as he happily contradicts himself along the way.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2020, 03:24 AM   #954
wea
Critical Thinker
 
wea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: EU, IT
Posts: 411
Originally Posted by paiute View Post
If you can't spell Schrödinger ...
<offtopic>

Roentgen(ium)
Moebius(band)
Foehn
Lagerstaette
Spitzenkoerper
Schroedinger

I just felt like annoying pauite

</offtopic>
wea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2020, 05:23 AM   #955
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 17,030
Originally Posted by wea View Post
I just felt like annoying pauite

Folks, paiute wasn't pedantically objecting to the use of "oe" as a substitute for "ö," but that the name in the paper under discussion omits the c. "Shroedinger."
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2020, 05:54 AM   #956
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 31,687
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Folks, paiute wasn't pedantically objecting to the use of "oe" as a substitute for "ö," but that the name in the paper under discussion omits the c. "Shroedinger."
That's a real hudinger.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2020, 09:08 AM   #957
wea
Critical Thinker
 
wea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: EU, IT
Posts: 411
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Folks, paiute wasn't pedantically objecting to the use of "oe" as a substitute for "ö," but that the name in the paper under discussion omits the c. "Shroedinger."
Thanks for correcting me, I only read back to post 933.
wea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2020, 08:15 PM   #958
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,421
And I still can't buy the magical genset?

What gives?

Lots of changes in my life such that I haven't been here much, but I see that neither the genset nor bigfoot have been shown to be in operating condition.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2020, 12:58 PM   #959
Mike!
Official Ponylandistanian National Treasure. Respect it!
 
Mike!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ponylandistan! Where the bacon grows on trees! Can it get any better than that? I submit it can not!
Posts: 38,154
Just thought I'd take a second and note, we're less than 2 months from the forth anniversary of michaelsuede* starting this (now on part 4) thread and we're still no closer to any sort of viable product whatsoever, even though they were supposedly "just months" from shipping when it was originally started. That doesn't begin to cover the 30 plus years Mills has been working on this scam product.








* Who bailed on this forum less than 2 years later.
__________________
"Never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes...
Because then it won't really matter, you’ll be a mile away and have his shoes."

Last edited by Mike!; 24th November 2020 at 02:07 PM.
Mike! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2020, 01:09 PM   #960
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,545
Originally Posted by Mike! View Post
Just thought I'd take a second and note, we're less than 2 months from the forth anniversary of michaelsuede* starting this (now on part 4) thread and we're still no closed to any sort of viable product whatsoever, even though they were supposedly "just months" from shipping when it was originally started. That doesn't begin to cover the 30 plus years Mills has been working on this scam product.








* Who bailed on this forum less than 2 years later.

And we should note, he never paid up on the bet he and I had.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 10:45 AM.
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.