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 10th July 2018, 11:27 AM   #1121
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,425
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Well, if this doesn't put the manufacturer back on the "to be emailed" list, I don't know what could.
Again, we see that Mills is involved in every claimed replication.
__________________
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 10th July 2018, 02:34 PM   #1122
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,585
Thumbs down A mistake and repeats his ignorance of the shell theorem

Originally Posted by markie View Post
We have an orbitsphere with nothing inside it. What are the gravitational, electric, and magnetic fields inside that orbitsphere? None. That is the calculation you refer to. That is self evident.

Now, add a proton to the centre of that orbitsphere. Presto, there is now gravitational, electric and magnetic fields inside the orbitsphere. Although, the gravitational aspect is minimal.
11 July 2018 markie: A mistake and repeats his ignorance of the shell theorem.

The mistake : Gravitation Inside A Uniform Hollow Sphere is a calculation of the gravitational forces, not fields, inside that shell.

Gravitation Inside A Uniform Hollow Sphere is actually a proof that any inverse square forces cancel out. This is regardless of the contents of the shell. Put a body of mass M inside the shell and the proof does not change. Ditto for a charge.

A charged mass inside a massive, charged shell experiences no gravitational or electromagnetic forces because the forces from the shell cancel out.
Reality Check 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 02:43 PM   #1123
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,585
Thumbs down A blatant lie that Mills theory is not incompatible with "the physics of the atom ...

Originally Posted by markie View Post
I think you misunderstand. JT was admitting that it is well known that QM and GR are incompatible. I agree that they are. I merely added that Mills' atomic physics and GR *are* fully compatible. (Although, Mills makes a modification to GR.)
Ok:
10 July 2018 markie: A lie that JeanTate's post states that QM and GR are not incompatible with Mills "theory".becomes
11 July 2018 markie: A blatant lie that Mills theory is not incompatible with "the physics of the atom and the physics of GR"

It is the physics of the atom and GR that I have been using in my analysis of his book.
The physics of the atom is what shows that Mills wrote an ignorant, deluded and lying book .
The physics of GR is what shows that Mills wrote an ignorant, deluded and lying book .
Reality Check 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 03:02 PM   #1124
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,585
Thumbs down Tiny ignorance GR + a QM and "adjustable parameters" fantasies

Originally Posted by markie View Post
GR is GR. Unlike GR, QM morphs according to the times. Like the Borg, it assimilates and changes according to what experiments reveal. It does this by adding more adjustable parameters or adjusting it's adjustable parameters. How many does it have now? 26 or so iirc.
11 July 2018 markie: Tiny ignorance GR + a QM and "morphs according to the times", "adjustable parameters" fantasies

The small ignorance is that GR has "morphed according to the times" a tiny bit. GR started with a cosmological constant. For decades it was set to zero. The observation of dark energy has put the cosmological constant back into GR.

QM was extended, i.e. morphed, and that was a good thing !
Start with the non-relativistic Schrodinger equation. Relativity was included to get Dirac's equation and a theory of real electrons. Treatment of many bodies resulted in second quantization. etc.

QM does not have adjustable parameters.
QM solutions can have parameters. The Standard Model of particle physics has 19 parameters that need to be experimentally measured, i.e. are only "adjusted" to match the real world.
Reality Check 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 03:07 PM   #1125
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,585
Originally Posted by markie View Post
That proton radius puzzle is what I'm referring to.
Then you understand that it is a lie that this is a problem with QM?
A 5% experimental discrepancy between a experimentally measured proton radius using 2 different techniques is not a problem with QM.

It may be a problem with the new experiments.
It may be a problem with the old experiments.
It may be new physics that appeared when using muons.
Reality Check 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 03:11 PM   #1126
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,585
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Adjustable parameters is likely referring to the variational methods used find approximate solutions to the wave functions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variat...ntum_mechanics)
The "26 parameters " is more likely a reference to the Standard Model
Reality Check 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 06:31 AM   #1127
UncertainH
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The small ignorance is that GR has "morphed according to the times" a tiny bit. GR started with a cosmological constant. For decades it was set to zero. The observation of dark energy has put the cosmological constant back into GR.
Slight correction GR was first presented in 1915, the cosmological constant was added in 1917. It did not start with it being present in the formulation.

(As an aside: Notice how this correction can be stated without calling someone ignorant or a liar.

GR has most certainly "morphed according to the times" and there is nothing wrong with that as new observations naturally lead to adjustments in our understanding and theories. There are many known problems with GR, QM, the Standard Model, all the variations of these theories, and Mills theory too. It should be possible to discuss the merits and failures of each without resorting to name calling and insults )
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 07:31 AM   #1128
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,088
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Slight correction GR was first presented in 1915, the cosmological constant was added in 1917. It did not start with it being present in the formulation.

(As an aside: Notice how this correction can be stated without calling someone ignorant or a liar.

GR has most certainly "morphed according to the times" and there is nothing wrong with that as new observations naturally lead to adjustments in our understanding and theories. There are many known problems with GR, QM, the Standard Model, all the variations of these theories, and Mills theory too. It should be possible to discuss the merits and failures of each without resorting to name calling and insults )
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/time-2
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 09:08 AM   #1129
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,162
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Slight correction GR was first presented in 1915, the cosmological constant was added in 1917. It did not start with it being present in the formulation.

(As an aside: Notice how this correction can be stated without calling someone ignorant or a liar.

GR has most certainly "morphed according to the times" and there is nothing wrong with that as new observations naturally lead to adjustments in our understanding and theories. There are many known problems with GR, QM, the Standard Model, all the variations of these theories, and Mills theory too. It should be possible to discuss the merits and failures of each without resorting to name calling and insults )

How has GR itself morphed? There are new ways to solve or approximate the very difficult-to-solve equations, and there are new applications of GR to cosmological problems, but GR itself remains GR, a very beautiful result.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 09:12 AM   #1130
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,162
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The "26 parameters " is more likely a reference to the Standard Model

Yes, see https://spinor.info/weblog/?p=6355 for more details.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 09:53 AM   #1131
UncertainH
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by markie View Post
How has GR itself morphed? There are new ways to solve or approximate the very difficult-to-solve equations, and there are new applications of GR to cosmological problems, but GR itself remains GR, a very beautiful result.
I agree. Well said. The word "morphed" would be far more appropriate for QM
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 10:30 AM   #1132
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,148
Originally Posted by markie View Post
FYI, Mills' model has mass and charge move along great circle loops of current. In addition, each loop is sweeping out a space on the orbitsphere, moving at right angles to the direction of the current flowing in the loop iirc. So, there is lots of movement going on. From this we get electron spin and magnetic moment of the electron.

That sure sounds like a lot of nonsense. You're talking (in the cast of atomic hydrogen) of a single electron supposedly forming a single "orbitsphere." So what are these multitudes of simultaneously moving charged masses? What is the mass and charge of the looping subelectronic moieties? How many of them make up one electron? What keeps the number of these particles per electron constant, so that their change and mass sum to a constant mass and consistent unit electric charge in all physical interactions? Why does measurement of the position of the negative charge associated with a hydrogen atom invariably yield one single point location (many orders of magnitude smaller than the orbital or "orbitsphere")?
__________________
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 11th July 2018, 10:46 AM   #1133
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,836
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
(As an aside: Notice how this correction can be stated without calling someone ignorant or a liar.
It helps that the person you are correcting isn't ignorant or a liar.

But this thread is about a person that appears to be running an intentional scam. It's important to point out that he is spreading misinformation, and also important that it appears to be intentional (easily faked youtube videos, allusions to papers and evidence that never come, scrubbing of the record from his website).

The last thing we'd want is for this thread to look like a polite discussion about an idea being taken seriously. That's probably exactly what the scammer wants, an appearance of legitimacy.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
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 July 2018, 12:01 PM   #1134
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,895
markie, UncertainH: I know this OT, but may I ask what you consider to be the major QM/QFT morphs?

Other than these two: the incorporation of special relativity, and the (ongoing, even today) work to understand the mathematical foundations.
JeanTate 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 July 2018, 02:28 PM   #1135
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,585
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Slight correction GR was first presented in 1915, the cosmological constant was added in 1917. It did not start with it being present in the formulation.
Thank you for the correction, UncertainH. It does emphasize the irrelevant fact that GR "morphed".

As an aside: Notice that I was being charitable with "small ignorance".
The real ignorance is that all scientific theories change with time because that is part of the definition of science. Theories are changed as knowledge is gained or new ways to express them are found. For example, in 1915, the Einstein–Hilbert action was proposed - GR in a "morphed" form.
markie has a track record of pots with ignorance about basic physics (e.g. his current display abut the shell theorem) and some posts with lies. He also blindly supports the ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book some of which are obvious to anyone who can read Wikipedia!
62 items of ignorance and some lies from markie from his blind faith in Mills.

Statements of fact are not insults. The fact is that that markie writes ignorance. I record his ignorance, he does not address them with evidence, and it is up to readers to decide whether that makes him ignorant. The fact is that markie writes lies. I record his lies, he does not address them with evidence, and it is up to readers to decide whether that makes him a liar.

Last edited by Reality Check; 11th July 2018 at 02:34 PM.
Reality Check 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 02:52 PM   #1136
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,585
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Yes, see https://spinor.info/weblog/?p=6355 for more details.
That is not a source about 26 adjustable parameters in QM.
It is the well known fact that the Standard Model of particle physics has parameters that are fixed by measuring them. The Wikipedia article lists 19 parameters because the fine structure constant in the article is encoded in the SU(2) and U(1) parameters. Extensions to the model extend the list up to 26 parameters.

The Standard Model is an application of QM, not QM itself.
Reality Check 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 04:19 PM   #1137
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,162
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
That sure sounds like a lot of nonsense. You're talking (in the cast of atomic hydrogen) of a single electron supposedly forming a single "orbitsphere." So what are these multitudes of simultaneously moving charged masses? What is the mass and charge of the looping subelectronic moieties? How many of them make up one electron? What keeps the number of these particles per electron constant, so that their change and mass sum to a constant mass and consistent unit electric charge in all physical interactions? Why does measurement of the position of the negative charge associated with a hydrogen atom invariably yield one single point location (many orders of magnitude smaller than the orbital or "orbitsphere")?

An orbitsphere is not composed of smaller subcomponents. It is a whole, indivisible unit. As I understand it, the reason continuous loops of mass-charge are depicted at all is to to help visualize and mathematically quantify the coordinated motions of the unified 2D orbitsphere membrane.

Electron orbitals are not points, they are distributed surface areas of of mass and charge as per Mills' theory. In QM they are 3D probability clouds of finding a point charge, never a single point charge itself.

Now *free* electrons are found to be point - like. Mills' theory has it approximating a point, but it is a spinning disk of charge with the charge concentrated in the centre and falling off quickly to the edge which is the deBroglie radius. See Chapter 3 (The Electron in Free Space) of Mills' GUTCP for more details if you want.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 04:28 PM   #1138
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,162
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
markie, UncertainH: I know this OT, but may I ask what you consider to be the major QM/QFT morphs?

Other than these two: the incorporation of special relativity, and the (ongoing, even today) work to understand the mathematical foundations.

You may find this to be a good timeline:
1900 - 1962: http://www.particleadventure.org/oth.../quantumt.html
1964 - present: http://www.particleadventure.org/other/history/smt.html

It's a mix of theoretical and experimental advances.

Can't help but notice the entry for 1995:

"After eighteen years of searching at many accelerators, the CDF and D0 experiments at Fermilab discover the top quark at the unexpected mass of 175 GeV. No one understands why the mass is so different from the other five quarks."

From Mills 2016 GUTCP page 1514

In 1995, Mills published the GUTCP prediction [101] that the expansion of the Universe was accelerating from the same equations that correctly predicted the mass of the top quark before it was measured.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 04:43 PM   #1139
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,895
Originally Posted by markie View Post
You may find this to be a good timeline:
1900 - 1962: http://www.particleadventure.org/oth.../quantumt.html
1964 - present: http://www.particleadventure.org/other/history/smt.html

It's a mix of theoretical and experimental advances.

Can't help but notice the entry for 1995:

"After eighteen years of searching at many accelerators, the CDF and D0 experiments at Fermilab discover the top quark at the unexpected mass of 175 GeV. No one understands why the mass is so different from the other five quarks."

<snip>
Thanks.

What you posted is, mostly, about the Standard Model of particle physics (as we call it today), which is - as RC has already noted - an application of QFT, not QFT itself.

As the first link shows, a big “morph” was the addition of special relativity, and particularly the role of Dirac (RC has posted about this before too). I didn’t see any others.
JeanTate 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 July 2018, 04:43 PM   #1140
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,088
Originally Posted by markie View Post
You may find this to be a good timeline:

1900 - 1962: http://www.particleadventure.org/oth.../quantumt.html

1964 - present: http://www.particleadventure.org/other/history/smt.html



It's a mix of theoretical and experimental advances.



Can't help but notice the entry for 1995:



"After eighteen years of searching at many accelerators, the CDF and D0 experiments at Fermilab discover the top quark at the unexpected mass of 175 GeV. No one understands why the mass is so different from the other five quarks."



From Mills 2016 GUTCP page 1514



In 1995, Mills published the GUTCP prediction [101] that the expansion of the Universe was accelerating from the same equations that correctly predicted the mass of the top quark before it was measured.


It’s common for quacks and con artists to try and attach their con to legitimate endeavors. Thank you for this example of Mills trying to hitch his wagon to people with actual accomplishments.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 04:52 PM   #1141
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,895
Originally Posted by markie View Post
An orbitsphere is not composed of smaller subcomponents. It is a whole, indivisible unit. As I understand it, the reason continuous loops of mass-charge are depicted at all is to to help visualize and mathematically quantify the coordinated motions of the unified 2D orbitsphere membrane.

Electron orbitals are not points, they are distributed surface areas of of mass and charge as per Mills' theory. In QM they are 3D probability clouds of finding a point charge, never a single point charge itself.

Now *free* electrons are found to be point - like. Mills' theory has it approximating a point, but it is a spinning disk of charge with the charge concentrated in the centre and falling off quickly to the edge which is the deBroglie radius. See Chapter 3 (The Electron in Free Space) of Mills' GUTCP for more details if you want.
Yeah, we’ve been over all this before. Including how something “indivisible” can allow particles pass through it with no consequences (e.g. beta decay). And how a point-like disc can morph into an infinitely thin sphere with no observable effects. Etc.

Magic, in other words.
JeanTate 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 July 2018, 05:20 PM   #1142
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,162
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Yeah, we’ve been over all this before. Including how something “indivisible” can allow particles pass through it with no consequences (e.g. beta decay). And how a point-like disc can morph into an infinitely thin sphere with no observable effects. Etc.

Magic, in other words.

Not magic, and not without consequences. The electron is indivisible, but hitting or even approaching an orbitsphere will produce various effects on the orbitsphere. This is the nature of chemical reactions after all - electron effects. If an orbitsphere is hit hard enough it will ionize off the nucleus, sometimes to be recaptured, other times not. And of course if it encounters a positron they will annihilate to form two gamma rays photons going in opposite directions.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 06:48 PM   #1143
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,585
Thumbs down Blindly parrots an obvious delusion from Mills book

Originally Posted by markie View Post
From Mills 2016 GUTCP page 1514
12 July 2018 markie: Blindly parrots an obvious delusion from Mills book.
"In 1995, Mills published the GUTCP prediction [101] that the expansion of the Universe was accelerating from the same equations that correctly predicted the mass of the top quark before it was measured."
Cosmology is not particle physics. Particle physics cannot predict an accelerating expansion of the universe. If we look for 'dark energy' in his book we see typical Mills rants. A quick scan suggests that this "GUTCP prediction" existed in the 1995 edition, not the current edition.

[101] is a reference to an inaccessible edition of his book not a published paper. A track record of lies suggests that this is another lie.

Looking for 'accelerat' to find his prediction for accelerating expansion reveals more ignorance and stupidity.
12 July 2018: Page xxvi: At least "absence of time dilation in redshifted quasars" ignorance (observed for a decade or more)
12 July 2018: Page xxvi: Stupidity of expecting E=mc2 to predict "fundamental particle masses, inertial or gravitational or why they are equivalent"
12 July 2018: Page 1475: A lie that an accelerating expansion invalidates GR.
12 July 2018: Page 1495: Looks like his prediction from his delusions about an oscillating universe.

12 July 2018: Page 1603: "magnetic energy" + GR + Compton wavelength gibberish starting on page 1603.

12 July 2018: Page 1605: Mills lies about the mass of a neutron which is 1.674927471(21)×10−27 kg (known since at least 2014).
He writes 1.6749 × 10−27 kg as if the other digits and experimental error did not exist. The experimental error rules out his calculated value. Fantasies about seconds and charge do not magically make the values equal.

12 July 2018: Page 1605: An imaginary strange-strange-charm neutron.

12 July 2018: Page 1605: An imaginary bottom-bottom-top neutron.

12 July 2018: Page 1606: Mills uses his imaginary neutrons to calculate a value for the top quark mass and lies by cherry picking a value from a 2002 paper.

His reference [3]: K. Hagiwara et al., Phys. Rev. D66, 010001 (2002); http://pdg.lbl.gov; http://pdg.lbl.gov/2002/topquark_q007.pdf.
"Table 2: Top mass measurements from D0 and CDF" lists 8 masses. The best value from the results of both experiments is 174.3 GeV/c2. The current value is 172.44 ± 0.13 GeV/c2. Mills selects the single value from that table (186 +/-10) that includes his value.

Part III: 18 items of ignorance, delusions and lies in Mills book has:
21 March 2017: Page 1514: Fantasies about the central black hole of the MW and dark matter.
21 March 2017: Page 1514: A double lie that dark matter matches the "characteristic spectral signatures and properties of hydrinos".
21 March 2017: Page 1514: Mills cannot understand a Bournaud et al paper or a Nature paper that cites it.
21 March 2017: Page 1514: Repeats Page 48: Mills is ignorant about the "best evidence yet" for the existence of dark matter
21 March 2017: Page 1514: Delusions about astrophysical results supporting the existence of hydrinos.

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.

Last edited by Reality Check; 11th July 2018 at 08:02 PM.
Reality Check 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 07:43 PM   #1144
UncertainH
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Cosmology is not particle physics. Particle physics cannot predict the expansion of the universe
The connections between particle physics and cosmology are huge and is an ongoing field of study and probably key to the development of any unified theory. Indeed one of the problems with QM is the lack of consideration of gravity and hence the struggle and perhaps impossible task of unifying QM with GR. Certainly, within an atom, gravitational forces are negligible but particles themselves are obviously the source of gravity.

Here is a decent overview and history: https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.1769

Mills attempts to bring general relativity into the mix when describing pair production and then extrapolates that to the larger cosmos. I don't think his treatment of it is necessarily correct or complete but may represent a small step forward for those willing to to at least think about. There are also a lot of other interesting theories about emergent spacetime and the electromagnetic origin of mass worthy of consideration.

Imho understanding the connection between particle physics and cosmology is probably one of the most important consideration in the pursuit of a unified 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 08:13 PM   #1145
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,585
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
The connections between particle physics and cosmology are huge and is an ongoing field of study and probably key to the development of any unified theory....
This is not what Mills ignorant, deluded and lying book does. Mills mixes GR into some particle physics phenomena (you mention pair production) which is one reason his book is deluded.

A real unified theory reduces to QM or GR in the appropriate limits.
A real unified theory explains all that GR and QM explain.
Mills does not have any unified theory. According his delusions, that would reduce to GR or "classical" physics in the appropriate limits. P.S. he has a little lie about using classical physics. He includes concepts that only exist in QM, e.g. quantized spin and energy.

ETA:
1 March 2017: Pages 1449-1452 are orbitsphere fantasies about pair production including that this involves General Relativity!
2 March 2017: Page 1471 - A delusion of "Newtonian gravitational velocity" for the velocity of particles in pair production.
2 March 2017: Page 1471 - Fantasy of a gravitational field appearing in pair production.

Last edited by Reality Check; 11th July 2018 at 08:21 PM.
Reality Check 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 08:40 PM   #1146
UncertainH
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
He includes concepts that only exist in QM, e.g. quantized spin and energy.
That's funny. Slight correction - quantized spin and energy are observed phenomenon in nature. They do not "exist" in QM, QM attempts to describe them
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 09:12 PM   #1147
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,585
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
That's funny. Slight correction - quantized spin and energy are observed phenomenon in nature. They do not "exist" in QM, QM attempts to describe them
That is a good correction. Even better: QM successfully describes quantized spin and energy. They are mathematical results of the Dirac and Schrodinger equations.

I am rather fond of the Dirac equation because a 3rd year pure math project was to write a paper on a subject of my choice. I selected the derivation of the Dirac equation because it has the interesting math of spinors.

ETA: A bit more on how Mills includes QM concepts in his book.
Start with a spherical singularity with the mass and change of an electron (an "orbitsphere"). There is experimental evidence that electrons have quantized spin, e.g. the Stern–Gerlach experiment. Assign this spherical singularity a classical spin equal to the electrons. Assert that this spin is quantized.

Last edited by Reality Check; 11th July 2018 at 09:26 PM.
Reality Check 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 10:14 AM   #1148
UncertainH
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
ETA: A bit more on how Mills includes QM concepts in his book.
Start with a spherical singularity with the mass and change of an electron (an "orbitsphere"). There is experimental evidence that electrons have quantized spin, e.g. the Stern–Gerlach experiment. Assign this spherical singularity a classical spin equal to the electrons. Assert that this spin is quantized.
Almost. Start with the premise that fundamental particles are 2 dimensional objects, yes! flatlanders living amongst us! (as opposed to a 0 dimensional idealized point - would that be a singularity?). Postulate that this object is composed of 2 spherical harmonic functions and add a constant function modulated by the harmonic functions to keep the mass and charge positive definite. There are an infinite number of possible solutions to this - so, as is usual practice when dealing with differential equations, apply boundary conditions and attempt to solve. One of the boundary conditions, yes, is based on the results of the Stern-Gerlach experiment. Other assumptions are that energy is constant and conserved, angular momentum is conserved and there are no spacetime fourier components synchronous with the speed of light.

This is my basic understanding, I'm not saying it is right or wrong but I think it a little closer to what Mills is proposing than that which is quoted above.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 12:42 PM   #1149
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: 12,754
So it's string theory +1d?

ETA: And minus math. Or logical restraint.

Last edited by Hellbound; 12th July 2018 at 01:26 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 01:02 PM   #1150
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,895
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Almost. Start with the premise that fundamental particles are 2 dimensional objects, yes! flatlanders living amongst us! (as opposed to a 0 dimensional idealized point - would that be a singularity?). Postulate that this object is composed of 2 spherical harmonic functions and add a constant function modulated by the harmonic functions to keep the mass and charge positive definite. There are an infinite number of possible solutions to this - so, as is usual practice when dealing with differential equations, apply boundary conditions and attempt to solve. One of the boundary conditions, yes, is based on the results of the Stern-Gerlach experiment. Other assumptions are that energy is constant and conserved, angular momentum is conserved and there are no spacetime fourier components synchronous with the speed of light.

This is my basic understanding, I'm not saying it is right or wrong but I think it a little closer to what Mills is proposing than that which is quoted above.
Hmm ... other than a somewhat more technical description, I don’t see any real difference with what RC wrote. Can you clarify please UH?
JeanTate 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 July 2018, 02:37 PM   #1151
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,585
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Almost. Start with the premise that fundamental particles are 2 dimensional objects, yes!..
I did not want to waste my time listing the full insanity of Mills delusions so thanks for your post, UncertainH.

An even fuller version:
Start with electrons only.

Deny all of the evidence that electrons are point particles.
  • Physical evidence dating from 1909 that bound electrons are particles.
  • Pass free electrons through a slit and get a band as expected for particles (not his disks).
  • The fact that treating electrons as point particles works in arguably the best scientific theory that exists (QFT).
Now postulate that electrons are 2 dimensional objects.

Imagine that bound electrons are spheres with infinite charge density and infinite mass density, i.e. a spherical singularity. Complain a lot about singularities in QM and GR. Ignore the singularities in classical physics (consider Coulomb's law as r goes to 0). Totally ignore his own spherical singularity.

Postulate that an electron "is composed of 2 spherical harmonic functions and add a constant function modulated by the harmonic functions to keep the mass and charge positive definite".

Lie about the non-radiative condition ("no spacetime fourier components synchronous with the speed of light") which applies to collections of charged point particles.

Just add a h bar/2 spin and declare that it is quantum spin in a classical theory. Later have a "Orbitsphere Equation of Motion For l = 0 Based on the Current Vector Field" section with a set of boundary conditions.
One of these is "and the current density distribution must be uniform" which is one of many reasons to call this a delusion - there are no electric forces from a uniformly charged sphere inside it, i.e. no electric forces holding a proton inside the sphere.

Electron spin is not just quantized to be with or against the direction of a measurement. Electron spins also obey non-classical Fermi–Dirac statistics. Bosons obey non-classical Bose–Einstein statistics. So Mills add these quantum statistics to his "classical" theory.

Now ignore that this is for electrons and apply it all fundamental particles.
Reality Check 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 02:48 PM   #1152
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,895
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Not magic, and not without consequences. The electron is indivisible, but hitting or even approaching an orbitsphere will produce various effects on the orbitsphere. This is the nature of chemical reactions after all - electron effects. If an orbitsphere is hit hard enough it will ionize off the nucleus, sometimes to be recaptured, other times not. And of course if it encounters a positron they will annihilate to form two gamma rays photons going in opposite directions.
Except when it doesn't

Consider beta+ radioactive decay: a positron escapes from the nucleus. Later, and well away from the birthatom, it meets an electron, and gammas result. Very well understood, and very useful; the basis for PET (positron emission tomotography), for example.

Trouble is, to get "out", the positron needs to go through several orbitspheres, which are "indivisible", and made of matter; IOW, an orbitsphere "encounters a positron" (can't possibly avoid doing so), but does NOT "annihilate to form two gamma rays photons going in opposite directions".

Oops.
JeanTate 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 July 2018, 03:54 PM   #1153
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,162
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
That is a good correction. Even better: QM successfully describes quantized spin and energy. They are mathematical results of the Dirac and Schrodinger equations.

I am rather fond of the Dirac equation because a 3rd year pure math project was to write a paper on a subject of my choice. I selected the derivation of the Dirac equation because it has the interesting math of spinors.
It should be known that Dirac thought of his work as provisional. He didn't like the infinities involved and he was highly suspect of renormalization. Here's a quote from him, my bold:

It seems clear that the present quantum mechanics is not in its final form. Some further changes will be needed, just about as drastic as the changes made in passing from Bohr's orbit theory to quantum mechanics. Some day a new quantum mechanics, a relativistic one, will be discovered, in which we will not have these infinities occurring at all. It might very well be that the new quantum mechanics will have determinism in the way that Einstein wanted.

He and Einstein would have rejoiced at seeing Mills' work imo.

Quote:
ETA: A bit more on how Mills includes QM concepts in his book.
Start with a spherical singularity with the mass and change of an electron (an "orbitsphere"). There is experimental evidence that electrons have quantized spin, e.g. the Stern–Gerlach experiment. Assign this spherical singularity a classical spin equal to the electrons. Assert that this spin is quantized.

There is no such thing as a spherical singularity. A singularity has dimension 0; no spatial extent. A sphere has spatial extent.

Yes for sure Mills has QM concepts in his book. In fact earlier titles of his book had the word 'quantum' in it. He decided to take it out because he didn't want it confused with, well, you know.

So expect the various boundary conditions used in Mills GUTCP to include experimental results from QM and relativity. One is that units of angular momentum are transferred in units of hbar. Another is that the hydrogen atom at n=1 does not radiate. Another is that both EM and gravity have a propagation limit of c. Another are the two or three? boundary conditions arising from the Stern-Gerlach experiment. (In this way he reverse engineers how the current flow patterns of the orbitsphere must be in order to satisfy those boundary conditions.)

Last edited by markie; 12th July 2018 at 04:31 PM. Reason: grammar
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 04:04 PM   #1154
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,162
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
So it's string theory +1d?

ETA: And minus math. Or logical restraint.
Lord no. String theory doesn't predict anything. It is the antithesis of Mills' theory.

Mills theory is constrained by experimental result as are his mathematics.

Consider the 2D electron orbitsphere. Why for instance is it 2D?

It cannot be an unphysical singularity of 0D.
It cannot be a 1D string; among other things it isn't capable of satisfying, say, the Haus radiation condition.
It cannot be a 3D volume ; there would be charge repulsion. (This is how, as I recall, Born convinced Schrodinger that his electron cloud distribution could not a cloud of charge but rather a cloud of probability. )
Voila, the only option is a 2D surface of moving charge, and charge moving in a very particular way.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 04:27 PM   #1155
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,895
Originally Posted by markie View Post
It should be known that Dirac thought of his work as provisional. He didn't like the infinities involved and he was highly suspect of renormalization. Here's a quote from him, my bold:

It seems clear that the present quantum mechanics is not in its final form. Some further changes will be needed, just about as drastic as the changes made in passing from Bohr's orbit theory to quantum mechanics. Some day a new quantum mechanics, a relativistic one, will be discovered, in which we will not have these infinities occurring at all. It might very well be that the new quantum mechanics will have determinism in the way that Einstein wanted.

He and Einstein would have rejoiced at seeing Mills' work imo.




There is no such thing as a spherical singularity. A singularity has dimension 0; no spatial extent. A sphere has spatial extent.

Yes for sure Mills has QM concepts in his book. In fact earlier titles of his book had the word 'quantum' in it. He decided to take it out because he didn't want it confused with, well, you know.

So expect the various boundary conditions used in Mills GUTCP include experimental results from QM and relativity. One is that units of angular momentum are transferred in units of hbar. Another is that the hydrogen atom at n=1 does not radiate. Another is that both EM and gravity have a propagation limit of c. Another are the two or three? boundary conditions arising from the Stern-Gerlach experiment. (In this way he reverse engineers how the current flow patterns of the orbitsphere must be in order to satisfy those boundary conditions.)
markie (and to some extent UH): if you'd like to learn what QFT (Quantum Field Theory) really is, and to some extent why your characterization of "QM" is so nonsensical, I recommend A. Zee's "Quantum Field Theory" (link) and Peter Woit's "Quantum Theory, Groups and Representations" (link); the latter is available free, with a bit of searching. Zee's book has a bazillion excellent reviews, but Woit's not so much (it's a lot more recent, for example); for a good one, see this one by Andrew Jordan.

It is likely that you will need to get some mathematics that is unknown to you under your belt(s) before you can make much headway with either; however, the effort is, I think you'll find, well worth it.

With a decent understanding of QFT in hand, it will take you very little time to see just how ridiculous Mills' idea are, in terms of being serious physics (as scifi they're not bad, though his prose leaves much to be desired). As RC and others have been saying, in posts that go back many months, even years.

If "below ground state hydrogen atoms" are ever discovered, it will quickly be shown that what's in Mills' tome is patent nonsense, in terms of describing their observed behavior. As will become obvious as soon as someone competent (and independent) performs tests on even a prototype of his "hydrino-based" energy machine.

Oh, and a clear sign of crackpot thinking is to quote from the likes of Dirac and Einstein, on what they personally felt about their work ... without putting those quotes in proper historical context and (key here) without the context of a contemporary understanding of their work (and how it's been developed). markie, you are no Dirac (and, for the record, neither is Mills).
JeanTate 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 July 2018, 04:29 PM   #1156
markie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,162
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Except when it doesn't

Consider beta+ radioactive decay: a positron escapes from the nucleus. Later, and well away from the birthatom, it meets an electron, and gammas result. Very well understood, and very useful; the basis for PET (positron emission tomotography), for example.

Trouble is, to get "out", the positron needs to go through several orbitspheres, which are "indivisible", and made of matter; IOW, an orbitsphere "encounters a positron" (can't possibly avoid doing so), but does NOT "annihilate to form two gamma rays photons going in opposite directions".

Oops.

Let's not be hasty. Not every meeting will result in annihilation, at least not right away. Certain conditions must be met. See for instance chapter 30 which Mills devotes fully to positronium.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 04:55 PM   #1157
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,895
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Let's not be hasty. Not every meeting will result in annihilation, at least not right away. Certain conditions must be met. See for instance chapter 30 which Mills devotes fully to positronium.
Indeed.

Is an orbitsphere indivisible?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

Is an orbitsphere charged?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

Is an orbitsphere matter, and not anti-matter?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

Is a positron charged?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

Is a positron anti-matter, and not matter?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

Is an orbitsphere spherical?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

In classical physics - the basis of Mills' ideas - is it possible for anything with non-zero mass to go through an indivisible sphere without affecting that sphere in any way?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

In other words, magic.
JeanTate 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 July 2018, 05:17 PM   #1158
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,664
But but Mills has *patents*!!!!
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager 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 July 2018, 05:26 PM   #1159
Humots
Critical Thinker
 
Humots's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 370
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Indeed.

Is an orbitsphere indivisible?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

Is an orbitsphere charged?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

Is an orbitsphere matter, and not anti-matter?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

Is a positron charged?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

Is a positron anti-matter, and not matter?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

Is an orbitsphere spherical?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

In classical physics - the basis of Mills' ideas - is it possible for anything with non-zero mass to go through an indivisible sphere without affecting that sphere in any way?

Per markie's interpretation of Mills, yes.

In other words, magic.
Is a positron an anti-electron?

Does a positron have an orbitsphere (or anti-orbitsphere)?
Humots 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 July 2018, 05:44 PM   #1160
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,088
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
But but Mills has *patents*!!!!


Well...

Sorta.

This was covered at length a while back, but the executive summary is the only really enforceable thing Mills has is the trademark on the use of the word “Hydrino” in power generation. Even that is so diluted that it’s unlikely to be enforceable.

It’s yet ANOTHER reason you’d have to be a moron to invest in BLP. If they have their science right and they get a working generator or heater to market, the core technologies will be reversed engineered and competing products on the market as fast as they can get through UL and regulatory approval.

Of course, that brings us to the fact that there’s no evidence of BLP having even started any of the regulatory work needed to get a new technology generating an exotic material as a waste product to market. Given the rank incompetence of their patent people, I doubt they’re on the ball with that either.
__________________
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 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 03:04 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.