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 13th December 2018, 04:56 PM   #2921
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,717
Thumbs down The shell theorem is basic physics that Mills does not address

Originally Posted by markie View Post
In other words, the shell theorem applies to a shell with no interior motion. The orbitsphere is different; it is in motion and there is no force transmitted between points on the orbitsphere.
14 December 2018 markie: In actual words, the shell theorem is basic physics that you and Mills do not address.

Spewing fantasies about what Mills delusions might do does not remove the delusions.

This Mils delusion is an infinitely thin sphere with no "interior". Mills imagines infinitely thin current loops on that sphere and textbook electromagnetism says there will be forces between them. Points on the sphere are charged negatively ! The sphere should explode unless it is mechanically rigid.
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 13th December 2018, 05:04 PM   #2922
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,717
Thumbs down Lies about the shell theorem which applies to a body inside a rigid sphere

Originally Posted by markie View Post
That applies to an empty, static sphere.
14 December 2018 markie: Lies about the shell theorem which applies to a body inside a rigid sphere.
The sphere is not empty, it has a body inside it as we have been stating for months.
The sphere is not "static". It can move. It is the movement that is a small part of what shows Mills orbitsphere to be delusional.
The sphere is rigid which means that it keeps it shape as a sphere and what does Mills have - an orbitsphere !
Mills hydrogen atom is physically impossible because Mills has a proton inside a rigid charged sphere, as in the shell theorem.

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

Last edited by Reality Check; 13th December 2018 at 05:07 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 13th December 2018, 05:26 PM   #2923
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,643
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
14 December 2018 markie: In actual words, the shell theorem is basic physics that you and Mills do not address.

Spewing fantasies about what Mills delusions might do does not remove the delusions.

This Mils delusion is an infinitely thin sphere with no "interior". Mills imagines infinitely thin current loops on that sphere and textbook electromagnetism says there will be forces between them. Points on the sphere are charged negatively ! The sphere should explode unless it is mechanically rigid.
'Interior' motion should be understood as inherent motion comprising the orbitsphere surface. There are no electrostatic forces between points on a 2D surface continuum of (negative) charge, whether or not it is moving. This is well known. The electric field is perpendicular to the surface and discontinuous at the surface. The field ends at the surface. Also, the surface is superconducting. It is known there is no field inside a superconductor. No electric field, no coulombic repulsive forces along the surface.
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 13th December 2018, 05:47 PM   #2924
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,673
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Central mass.
Well in that case it is inherently unstable.

The best analogy I can think of is Lagrange points. While there are 5 points of equilibrium, only L4 and L5 are stable.

In your example an actual central mass would will tend to fall out of center, and the farther out of center the more forces fall out of equilibrium, much like L1 L2 and L3 are in equilibrium, but as objects are unstable there, they tend to fall away from those positions without active station keeping in order to maintain their position.

What you are proposing couldn't possibly be related to either hydrinos or any other matter for that matter. (sorry couldn't resist)

With what you suppose is happening the whole Universe would pop out of existence in a fraction of a second.(edit to add as we know it) Almost instantly. Unless you also can point to some sort of active station keeping here too?
__________________
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; 13th December 2018 at 06:39 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 13th December 2018, 06:17 PM   #2925
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,902
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
Thank you, Hans.

For putting into elegant form the idea that Mills is serving a P.T. Barnum dictum.

If you view BLP from a power production standard, it is zero, literally. If you view them from a woo-market service provider standard, they're top of the charts.

Just look at those slick futuristic gizmos that do nothing but draw in millions per year in suckers, as Barnum called them.

The right thing to marvel at is how well this con man has played his targets. It isn't a study area of mine so I can't really say what he is doing that others fail at.
If you look at how markie tries to make BLP's wild claims "possible". All he does, over and over again is to constantly bring up anything not related to that one key point - nothing is every produced. Instead he prances about trying to make obscure points in areas that have no value in that one area - producing a product.
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 13th December 2018, 06:22 PM   #2926
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,717
Originally Posted by markie View Post
'Interior' ....
Usual lies as we should expect from a supporter of the ignorant, deluded and lying Mills. Mills does not have a "2D surface continuum of (negative) charge". Mills delusion is current loops magically shaped into a rigid sphere.
Electromagnetism 101: Magnetic Force Between Wires (currents!). Electromagnets exist (a current loop with a magnetic field).

14 December 2018 markie: In actual words, the shell theorem is basic physics that you and Mills do not address.

Last edited by Reality Check; 13th December 2018 at 06:27 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 13th December 2018, 08:32 PM   #2927
UncertainH
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
If anyone is skeptical than they can do what Pauli did and apply textbook physics to an extended electron with its angular momentum from its measured magnetic moment. They will get the same result. It is physically impossible because that extended electron will have a surface that is moving faster than the speed of light.
LOL! A skeptic can also realize that a lot has happened since 1925. Do a simple search on "extended electron models" and a vast array of papers from reputable physicists. Read some of the papers and follow the citations. You will find interesting ideas from Dirac, Hestenes, Schwinger, and a lot of new names as well. But this topic probably deserves a thread of its own. I referenced the previous paper because it made mention of Mills
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 13th December 2018, 08:43 PM   #2928
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,643
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Usual lies as we should expect from a supporter of the ignorant, deluded and lying Mills. Mills does not have a "2D surface continuum of (negative) charge". Mills delusion is current loops magically shaped into a rigid sphere.
Electromagnetism 101: Magnetic Force Between Wires (currents!). Electromagnets exist (a current loop with a magnetic field).

14 December 2018 markie: In actual words, the shell theorem is basic physics that you and Mills do not address.
Yes your 'current loops' is fine. Current loops of what? Mass and charge, together. The magnetic field lines are normal to both the current and the electrical field lines. So like the electrical field lines they don't operate along the 2D orbitsphere surface if that's what you were implying with the linked diagram.

Last edited by markie; 13th December 2018 at 09:04 PM.
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 13th December 2018, 09:03 PM   #2929
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,643
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
If you look at how markie tries to make BLP's wild claims "possible". All he does, over and over again is to constantly bring up anything not related to that one key point - nothing is every produced. Instead he prances about trying to make obscure points in areas that have no value in that one area - producing a product.
Again, must I say: lots of different apparatuses - validated as generating excess energy - have been 'produced' over the years. Nothing good enough to develop to market. If you have observed the trajectory of the progress in the last four years since the inception of the SunCell type of reaction, then perhaps you would not assume certain things the way you do but rather grasp the magnitude of what is about to transpire.
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 13th December 2018, 09:11 PM   #2930
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,643
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Well in that case it is inherently unstable.

The best analogy I can think of is Lagrange points. While there are 5 points of equilibrium, only L4 and L5 are stable.

In your example an actual central mass would will tend to fall out of center, and the farther out of center the more forces fall out of equilibrium, much like L1 L2 and L3 are in equilibrium, but as objects are unstable there, they tend to fall away from those positions without active station keeping in order to maintain their position.

What you are proposing couldn't possibly be related to either hydrinos or any other matter for that matter. (sorry couldn't resist)

With what you suppose is happening the whole Universe would pop out of existence in a fraction of a second.(edit to add as we know it) Almost instantly. Unless you also can point to some sort of active station keeping here too?
Didn't know that about the Lagrange points. But have no fear, the universe is safe. It will take about 13.6 electron volts to budge the proton from its locked location at the centre of the hydrogen orbitsphere.
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 13th December 2018, 09:25 PM   #2931
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,673
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Didn't know that about the Lagrange points. But have no fear, the universe is safe. It will take about 13.6 electron volts to budge the proton from its locked location at the centre of the hydrogen orbitsphere.
I used Lagrange points as an example, but it also applies to shell theorem too. And beyond that it not only applies to gravity, but also any force with the inverse square law, including for example the electrostatic force.

Which means you have it all exactly backwards. It would naturally fall out unless a force was actively applied to prevent it.

I have no idea which force you are supposing would normally be holding the mass precisely at center, but without a force actively countering, it would destabilize pretty much from anything at all. Mass has inertia, so any change at all in any direction and poof.

Oh and I have no fear at all because I am quite certain all what you and Mills are talking about is unicorn manure. We can argue how stinky Unicorn manure may or may not be till the end of days, but it will never mean hydrinos are real. Thus the argument means nothing. The real world doesn't work that way.
__________________
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; 13th December 2018 at 09:34 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 December 2018, 05:19 AM   #2932
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,240
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Occam's Razor is not a principle or a method used to derive new theories. Occam's Razor is a heuristic used to select which completing theory is more trustworthy. Basically, if two theories have identical predictions then trust the one with the fewer entities.
Even then it's not a hard and fast rule which tells you which theory is correct. It's just a method to determine which theory should be given preference.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 06:02 AM   #2933
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,079
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Again, must I say: lots of different apparatuses - validated as generating excess energy - have been 'produced' over the years. Nothing good enough to develop to market. If you have observed the trajectory of the progress in the last four years since the inception of the SunCell type of reaction, then perhaps you would not assume certain things the way you do but rather grasp the magnitude of what is about to transpire.
You missed a "not" before validated.

If it had been validated in any meaningful way you'd have researchers falling over themselves to duplicate and expand on the work.

You may not be aware but not that many years ago, around the time Mill started making his promises of a commercial product in the next 6 months there was an amazing claim made about what was known as "cold fusion". What then happened was literally dozens of researchers over the world jumped into this apparent incredible breakthrough that was at odds with the current consensus regarding how fusion could be made to happen. Now sadly it proved to not be the breakthrough the original researchers believed it was but that's not the point of me telling the tale. The point is if a fantastic not known about energy production was validated you'd have the science community in uproar again as they jump on the bandwagon.

But because his claims have never been validated in any meaningful way he has failed to garner the interest of the wider science research community.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 14th December 2018 at 06:05 AM. Reason: Shy researchers
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 Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 06:03 AM   #2934
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,079
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Even then it's not a hard and fast rule which tells you which theory is correct. It's just a method to determine which theory should be given preference.
Not even that really, it just tells you which in principle should be the easiest theory to verify or falsify.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 06:36 AM   #2935
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,951
Originally Posted by markie View Post
The rigidity doesn't have to do with lateral forces along the surface, which is what you would be familiar with. It has to do with forces perpendicular (normal) to the sphere's surface, giving rise to pressure or tension on the orbitsphere surface. The inward pull of the central centripetal force meets the equal and opposite outward pull of the centrifugal 'force'.
Mills calculates this as an incredible 2.33 * 10^12 N / m^2 which is about 20 million atmospheres (see appendix 2). So yeah it's rigid.

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

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

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

What prevents Mills-model hydrogen atoms from doing the same?
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 06:38 AM   #2936
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,657
Originally Posted by markie View Post
In other words, the shell theorem applies to a shell with no interior motion. The orbitsphere is different; it is in motion and there is no force transmitted between points on the orbitsphere.


True.

True if the shell is static and empty. But if the shell is in orbital motion, there must be a mass inside the shell. And if there is such a mass, then a 'point somewhere inside the spherical shell' will not experience a net gravitational force of zero ; it will experience a gravitational force from the mass inside the sphere.



The orbitsphere is not elastic. It is rigid, but yet in motion. Each orbiting point is declared to have the same speed and thus each point orbits at the same distance from the nucleus. This is orbital mechanics, plain and simple. The orbitsphere is thus at a fixed distance from nucleus, meaning the nucleus doesn't move from the orbitsphere centre. This result is different from that for a static shell and the shell theorem. So, the shell theorem does not apply. It is a different physical object. No known physics experiments apply to an orbitsphere like object, only to static shell objects. So it doesn't 'un-answer' anything. Rather, it provides answers to a novel object. Those answers in turn lead to to very accurate results for predicting things like ionization and bond energies of atomic and molecular species.
Creative, I’ll give you that.

Each “orbiting point” on the sphere belongs to an infinite (countable?) number of rings, all of which have the same radius and center. The rings’ orientations are evenly distributed. And for every ring rotating one direction, there’s one - and only one - ring rotating in the opposite direction.

I intend to explore this, in relation to known behavior of electrons, over the next few posts.

For now, just this: how do these rings get created? Recall that an isolated electron is a disk, presumably without rotating rings. And when? Only when the sphere is fully formed? Or is there some intermediate stage?
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 December 2018, 08:06 AM   #2937
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,643
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
That's not what rigidity is. Without lateral forces along the surface and interaction between the parts of the sphere, there is no rigidity. It doesn't matter how strong or well-balanced the forces on the individual parts (points or rings) are.

If you have a pile of sand, the gravitational force on every grain is perfectly balanced by upward contact forces. That doesn't make the sand pile rigid.
I think it does make a difference about how strong the counteracting forces are.
For instance I don't think a certain force applied to a pile of sand on the earth would produce the same effect as the same force applied to the same pile of sand on a neutron star.

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

What prevents Mills-model hydrogen atoms from doing the same?
Gravity is a weak force especially compared to the huge coulombic force between the proton and electron. Also, the electron doesn't have the luxury of having some of its properties perturbed, as do parts of a galaxy.
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 December 2018, 08:20 AM   #2938
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,643
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
You missed a "not" before validated.

If it had been validated in any meaningful way you'd have researchers falling over themselves to duplicate and expand on the work.

You may not be aware but not that many years ago, around the time Mill started making his promises of a commercial product in the next 6 months there was an amazing claim made about what was known as "cold fusion". What then happened was literally dozens of researchers over the world jumped into this apparent incredible breakthrough that was at odds with the current consensus regarding how fusion could be made to happen. Now sadly it proved to not be the breakthrough the original researchers believed it was but that's not the point of me telling the tale. The point is if a fantastic not known about energy production was validated you'd have the science community in uproar again as they jump on the bandwagon.

But because his claims have never been validated in any meaningful way he has failed to garner the interest of the wider science research community.
Mills wasn't promising an energy breakthrough before March of 1989. He wasn't in academia and he wasn't an established world famous chemist. The letdown from academia largely failing to reproduce the Pons and Fleischmann effect poisoned the well for future academic openess toward 'unlikely' energy sources, whether cold fusion or hydrino. So the scientific community no longer goes into a frenzy when there are whispers of a too good to be true energy source. It's more like, "yeah, sure". Thankfully industry and to a lesser degree the media aren't as jaded.
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 December 2018, 08:26 AM   #2939
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,643
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Creative, I’ll give you that.

Each “orbiting point” on the sphere belongs to an infinite (countable?) number of rings, all of which have the same radius and center. The rings’ orientations are evenly distributed. And for every ring rotating one direction, there’s one - and only one - ring rotating in the opposite direction.

I intend to explore this, in relation to known behavior of electrons, over the next few posts.

For now, just this: how do these rings get created? Recall that an isolated electron is a disk, presumably without rotating rings. And when? Only when the sphere is fully formed? Or is there some intermediate stage?
The rotating rings are always there, whether in the free electron disk or the spherical orbitsphere. (For the spinning free electron disk it is an inward magnetic force that is in balance the outward centrifugal inertial mass 'force'.)
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 December 2018, 09:11 AM   #2940
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,240
Originally Posted by markie View Post
The rotating rings are always there, whether in the free electron disk or the spherical orbitsphere.
How are the rings there in a spherical, 1-dimensional disk?
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 09:27 AM   #2941
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: 29,015
Originally Posted by markie View Post
I think it does make a difference about how strong the counteracting forces are.
For instance I don't think a certain force applied to a pile of sand on the earth would produce the same effect as the same force applied to the same pile of sand on a neutron star.
Damn, I wish I could be as funny as that. A pile of sand on a neutron star? Seriously?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 December 2018, 09:54 AM   #2942
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,643
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Damn, I wish I could be as funny as that. A pile of sand on a neutron star? Seriously?

Dave
Yeah on a neutron star the sand would become a liquid film very quickly wouldn't it. Thought you would enjoy the picture. As an alternative you could imagine the sand on your favourite beach here on earth but somehow subject to billions of times the gravity of earth. I think the sand's 'rigidity' would be altered.
markie 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 December 2018, 09:58 AM   #2943
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,643
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
How are the rings there in a spherical, 1-dimensional disk?
Concentric rings of mass charge current on a flat disk. So unlike the orbitsphere the rings are not the same size. Chapter 3 of Mills' GUTCP has some nice illustrations.

Last edited by markie; 14th December 2018 at 09:59 AM.
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 December 2018, 10:03 AM   #2944
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: 29,015
Originally Posted by markie View Post
As an alternative you could imagine the sand on your favourite beach here on earth but somehow subject to billions of times the gravity of earth. I think the sand's 'rigidity' would be altered.
I think you need to learn about scaling laws as well as about the Shell Theorem.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 December 2018, 10:22 AM   #2945
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 24,240
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Concentric rings of mass charge current on a flat disk. So unlike the orbitsphere the rings are not the same size. Chapter 3 of Mills' GUTCP has some nice illustrations.
Then the middle is a spinning point? Why do some of these rings change direction when the disk becomes a sphere?
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 11:11 AM   #2946
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: 13,526
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Yeah on a neutron star the sand would become a liquid film very quickly wouldn't it. Thought you would enjoy the picture. As an alternative you could imagine the sand on your favourite beach here on earth but somehow subject to billions of times the gravity of earth. I think the sand's 'rigidity' would be altered.
Um, no. This is almost comical in it's misunderstanding of physics.

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

In fact, it wouldn't be sand anymore.

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

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

IN fact, I think your sand on the neutron star analogy is actually a pretty good one for the whole orbitsphere nonsense.
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 14th December 2018, 11:19 AM   #2947
UncertainH
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Then the middle is a spinning point? Why do some of these rings change direction when the disk becomes a sphere?
Just to clarify, Mills is not claiming that these rings actually exist, they are a mathematical tool used to describe the motion of the current on the 2-sphere.

From GUTCP latest edition starting on Page 67:
Quote:
The atomic orbital spin function comprises a constant uniform charge (current) density with moving charge confined to a 2 dimensional spherical shell. The current density is continuous, but it may be modeled as a current pattern comprising a superposition of an infinite series of correlated orthogonal great circle current loops. The equation of motion for each charge--density element (and correspondingly for each mass-density element) corresponds to that of a 1 dimensional great circle wherein each point charge(current)-density element moves time harmonically with constant angular velocity.

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

Thus the electron as an indivisible fundamental particle is related to the concepts of current and momentum elements, but the great circle current loop basis element used to generate and represent the bound electron current corresponding to spin should be considered more fundamentally in terms of sources of electric and magnetic field sources of momentum that in aggregate gives the corresponding properties of the electron as a whole.
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 14th December 2018, 12:03 PM   #2948
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,079
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
That's not what rigidity is. Without lateral forces along the surface and interaction between the parts of the sphere, there is no rigidity. It doesn't matter how strong or well-balanced the forces on the individual parts (points or rings) are.

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

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

What prevents Mills-model hydrogen atoms from doing the same?
Wishes.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 12:15 PM   #2949
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: 13,526
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Wishes.
Actually, breaking news. I've been informed that there has been actual imagery captured of the forces that keep orbitspheres in place:
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 14th December 2018, 12:29 PM   #2950
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,643
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Just to clarify, Mills is not claiming that these rings actually exist, they are a mathematical tool used to describe the motion of the current on the 2-sphere.

From GUTCP latest edition starting on Page 67:
For sure, good point.
markie 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 December 2018, 12:45 PM   #2951
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,643
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Um, no. This is almost comical in it's misunderstanding of physics.

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

In fact, it wouldn't be sand anymore.

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

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

IN fact, I think your sand on the neutron star analogy is actually a pretty good one for the whole orbitsphere nonsense.
Hey it wasn't me who started the sand analogy. It was only me who took it to ridiculous extremes.
A better picture would be this. Imagine a very rapidly spinning disk, vertical axis of rotation, spinning on the horizontal plane a few inches above the floor. Attached to the outer edges are hundreds of strong threads of equal length, and on the other end of each thread is a ballbearing. The thread and ballbearings are extended radially due to centrifugal force and form a circle as the disk spins. The evenly spaced ballbearings almost touch each other. Now we roll a volleyball towards the rapidly spinning object. What will happen when they collide? The ballbearings will effectively serve as the outer rim of an extended disk; the ball will hit it and bounce back as if it hit a solid, rigid disk. Yet there is no lateral force between the ballbearings.
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 December 2018, 02:31 PM   #2952
HappySkeptic99
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Just to clarify, Mills is not claiming that these rings actually exist, they are a mathematical tool used to describe the motion of the current on the 2-sphere.

From GUTCP latest edition starting on Page 67:
I agree that one can choose any mathematical tool you want, regardless of how ridiculous it is, if it makes precise predictions. But, if the predictions are better without an arbitrary construction, then one should throw away the construction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, Mills claims that his formulas only use fundamental constants. This is "partly true", by which I mean it is misleading. I can fit anything to anything using only fundamental constants. I can put them in exponents, denominators, multiplicative factors, and raise them to different powers. I bet with a bit of work, I could invent more accurate formulas than Mills, just by adding a few higher order terms. Of course, I'd have to update it, when new experimental results invalidated them.
HappySkeptic99 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 December 2018, 03:14 PM   #2953
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,660
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Actually, breaking news. I've been informed that there has been actual imagery captured of the forces that keep orbitspheres in place:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4012a3b380.jpg
And Electric Comets glowing!
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 December 2018, 03:54 PM   #2954
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,469
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
And Electric Comets glowing!
Mills is right up there with Thornhill & Talbott when it comes to scientific credibility! They should work together on a theory of.......................... complete bollocks.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 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 December 2018, 04:09 PM   #2955
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,903
I don't think Mills is deluded. That would require him to believe this BS.
Dr.Sid 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 December 2018, 08:59 PM   #2956
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,657
Thanks.
Originally Posted by markie View Post
The rotating rings are always there, whether in the free electron disk or the spherical orbitsphere. (For the spinning free electron disk it is an inward magnetic force that is in balance the outward centrifugal inertial mass 'force'.)
Apart from those which rotate in opposite directions, none of these (uncountably infinite in number) disk rings intersect with any other, right?

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

Also, these rotating rings - which have mass and charge - intersect without any effect in both shells and disks ... yet a ring in one electron most certainly reacts when it intersects with a ring in another electron. How come?
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 December 2018, 11:45 PM   #2957
UncertainH
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by HappySkeptic99 View Post
What he has done is created a 2-D projection of the 3-D wavefunction, for Hydrogen, onto a hard sphere. Yes, this makes math really easy.
Sorry you'll have to do better than that. His proposal is that leptons are 2 dimensional and can change shape or size this is not to make the math easy. You will have to read most of the book to understand all of the derivations. Your opinion is not correct.

Quote:
I went through Mills' fine structure constant derivation, and anything beyond the first term is not even derived. The first term is well known, and does have a classical analog. Mills invents the farther terms with no backup (almost like he invented them), and still gets an answer that is not close enough.
Again all the derivations are there so yes I suppose he did invent them.
Quote:
As for Mills' "Millsian" program, yes he has invented formulas that match empirical results reasonably well -- but they have no backup in his theory.
Millsian started out as equations, then spreadsheets based on those equations, then visualization tools added. Quite a few years ago I followed through the derivations of some of those equations, put them in spreadsheets and confirmed them for myself because I was (and still am) skeptical. Others have done the same. Yes Millsian is completely backed up by his theory.
UncertainH 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 December 2018, 11:49 PM   #2958
UncertainH
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Also, these rotating rings - which have mass and charge - intersect without any effect in both shells and disks ... yet a ring in one electron most certainly reacts when it intersects with a ring in another electron. How come?
From the section from gutcp that I posted
Quote:
Thus it is useful to regard an electron as a special state photon. Page 67,68
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 December 2018, 04:10 AM   #2959
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,574
Not that this affects any of the arguments being made...

Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Each “orbiting point” on the sphere belongs to an infinite (countable?) number of rings, all of which have the same radius and center.
Uncountable, as the rings are in one-to-one correspondence with angles, which are in one-to-one correspondence with the real numbers from zero to pi (or zero to one hundred eighty if you prefer degrees, or zero to two pi or zero to three sixty if you're counting directed (oriented) rings).
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 15th December 2018, 06:50 AM   #2960
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,902
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Again, must I say: lots of different apparatuses - validated as generating excess energy - have been 'produced' over the years. Nothing good enough to develop to market. If you have observed the trajectory of the progress in the last four years since the inception of the SunCell type of reaction, then perhaps you would not assume certain things the way you do but rather grasp the magnitude of what is about to transpire.
Lol......nothing of 'magnitude' is going to happen markie.....what is going to happen is what has been happening for the last thirty years......a scam.

The trajectory is into nothing.......
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
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 07:49 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.