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 17th January 2019, 09:03 PM   #4041
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,482
Although optiongeek says he is quoting an equation from Mills's BBoBB, this particular boo-boo might be original with optiongeek:
Originally Posted by optiongeek View Post
According to equation 1.35, the charge velocity in the bound electron is

v = h_bar/(m x r_e) = alpha * c
In the December 2018 edition, Mills's equation (1.35) actually says vn = ℏ / (mern), where ℏ is the reduced Planck constant (which might be hard to discern, depending on the font you use to read this).

If vn were equal to the constant velocity alpha*c, as alleged above by optiongeek, then the velocity would be independent of n. Wouldn't that imply that hydrinos could not exist? (Because it would imply there are no states other than the state corresponding to that alpha*c velocity, which we would then have to accept as the ground state since it would be (in optiongeek's universe) the only possible state.)

On my reading of Mills's Big Book of Boo-Boos, I believe Mills wants vn to vary with n. I guess I should be pleased to see optiongeek disagreeing with Mills on something, even if optiongeek is even more wrong here than Mills is.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2019, 09:45 PM   #4042
optiongeek
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
For example, 5.40390 (experiment value) is not 5.39172 (his value) for Li.
Actually, I get 5.4089 when I do the GUTCP-based calculation. Mills calculated value (Eq 10.25) is 5.4090. He quotes the experimental value as 5.392, which he cites to a couple of references from 1970 (C. E. Moore) and 1977 (CRC Handbook).

What's the QM-calculated value?
optiongeek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2019, 09:49 PM   #4043
optiongeek
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Although optiongeek says he is quoting an equation from Mills's BBoBB, this particular boo-boo might be original with optiongeek:

In the December 2018 edition, Mills's equation (1.35) actually says vn = ℏ / (mern), where ℏ is the reduced Planck constant (which might be hard to discern, depending on the font you use to read this).

If vn were equal to the constant velocity alpha*c, as alleged above by optiongeek, then the velocity would be independent of n. Wouldn't that imply that hydrinos could not exist? (Because it would imply there are no states other than the state corresponding to that alpha*c velocity, which we would then have to accept as the ground state since it would be (in optiongeek's universe) the only possible state.)

On my reading of Mills's Big Book of Boo-Boos, I believe Mills wants vn to vary with n. I guess I should be pleased to see optiongeek disagreeing with Mills on something, even if optiongeek is even more wrong here than Mills is.
Velocity varies with n. It starts out at alpha * c for the n=1 state, and becomes nearly c at n = 1/137.
optiongeek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:14 AM   #4044
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,482
Originally Posted by optiongeek View Post
Actually, I get 5.4089 when I do the GUTCP-based calculation. Mills calculated value (Eq 10.25) is 5.4090. He quotes the experimental value as 5.392, which he cites to a couple of references from 1970 (C. E. Moore) and 1977 (CRC Handbook).
RealityCheck inadvertently interchanged the value calculated by Mills with the measured ionization energy. RealityCheck's point stands: the value calculated using standard quantum mechanics is 12 times as close to the experimental value as the value calculated by Mills.

Originally Posted by optiongeek View Post
What's the QM-calculated value?
5.39271223 eV.

Comparison:
Code:
5.39171495        ; experimental value (per NIST)
5.39271223        ; calculated using quantum mechanics
5.40390           ; as calculated by Mills in his Big Book
NIST's web pages are down during the Trump shutdown. The QM calculation uses a computational technique devised by David A Dix, David Feller, and Kirk A Peterson.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:53 AM   #4045
optiongeek
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
RealityCheck inadvertently interchanged the value calculated by Mills with the measured ionization energy. RealityCheck's point stands: the value calculated using standard quantum mechanics is 12 times as close to the experimental value as the value calculated by Mills.


5.39271223 eV.
Thanks. However that derivation strikes me as the elaborations of a bad liar. Non physical fudge factor piled on top of non physical fudge factor. No thanks.
optiongeek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:33 AM   #4046
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,482
down the rabbit hole

Until a few days ago, optiongeek had been saying he believed Mills because (optiongeek believed) Mills's formulas were more accurate than calculations based on quantum mechanics.

As has been demonstrated within the past couple of days, the spreadsheet optiongeek downloaded from Mills is substantially less accurate than calculations based on quantum mechanics, and Mills's formula for the anomalous magnetic dipole moment is two decimal orders of magnitude less accurate than the calculation based on quantum mechanics.

Did those facts cause optiongeek to reconsider his faith in Mills?

No. optiongeek has retreated to a belief that mainstream scientists are engaged in a conspiracy, alleging that the theoretical calculations have been fudged to match the experimental results, and also that the experimental results have been fudged to match the theoretical calculations.

optiongeek's allegation of bad faith in calculations made by Professors David Feller and Kirk A Peterson of Washington State University:

Originally Posted by optiongeek View Post
Thanks. However that derivation strikes me as the elaborations of a bad liar. Non physical fudge factor piled on top of non physical fudge factor. No thanks.

optiongeek's allegation of bad faith on the part of those who measured the accepted (per NIST) experimental values:

Originally Posted by optiongeek View Post
In terms of the accuracy of the equations, I have no basis to judge the relative claims of experimentalists on how accurate their measurements are. All I can do is assess the potential motives and at what point they hit diminishing returns in terms of credibility when claiming ever increasing levels of confidence.

optiongeek has shown no sign of being able to criticize either the theoretical calculations or the experimental results. He is dismissing mainstream physics only because he believes Randell L Mills to be more honest and reliable than any of the thousands of physicists who are contributing to the science that contradicts Mills's Big Book of Boo-Boos.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:56 AM   #4047
optiongeek
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Until a few days ago, optiongeek had been saying he believed Mills because (optiongeek believed) Mills's formulas were more accurate than calculations based on quantum mechanics.

As has been demonstrated within the past couple of days, the spreadsheet optiongeek downloaded from Mills is substantially less accurate than calculations based on quantum mechanics, and Mills's formula for the anomalous magnetic dipole moment is two decimal orders of magnitude less accurate than the calculation based on quantum mechanics.

Did those facts cause optiongeek to reconsider his faith in Mills?

No. optiongeek has retreated to a belief that mainstream scientists are engaged in a conspiracy, alleging that the theoretical calculations have been fudged to match the experimental results, and also that the experimental results have been fudged to match the theoretical calculations.

optiongeek's allegation of bad faith in calculations made by Professors David Feller and Kirk A Peterson of Washington State University:




optiongeek's allegation of bad faith on the part of those who measured the accepted (per NIST) experimental values:




optiongeek has shown no sign of being able to criticize either the theoretical calculations or the experimental results. He is dismissing mainstream physics only because he believes Randell L Mills to be more honest and reliable than any of the thousands of physicists who are contributing to the science that contradicts Mills's Big Book of Boo-Boos.
But here's the thing. I can take my spreadsheet (independently built using Mills' formulas, not downloaded as you say) and then sweep the calculation down, which each new row representing a unit increment in the central charge. If my first row represents Li (central charge +3), then the next row represents Be+ (central charge +4), and the next B2+ (central charge +5) and so on. Without changing the formula, it still works regardless of which row it's in. When we move to the 4-electron series, slight adjustments are made to the same underlying mechanism to account for the different orbitals, and the same phenomena is observed: universal predictability of the equations.

The QM-generated calculation provided does not have this property. Each equation is separately crafted with it's own set of fudge factors. There's simply no way to represent them in spreadsheet format.

I appreciate very much having this conversation because it merely reinforces my conviction. There is no way to replicate the GUTCP results when you start from Schrodinger/Heisenberg.
optiongeek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:40 AM   #4048
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,245
Optiongeek, what you’re posting is not science, it’s numerology.

Or, at best, creating fitting formulae.

Playing with numbers in a spreadsheet can be fun! There are all kinds of apparently magical near coincidences, which you can easily leverage to make a very impressive match. Try it yourself!

And this part of the ISF is about science, not numerology. Mills’ BBoBB fails, as science, in sooooo many ways; no impressive fitting formulae can hide the key science failures.
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 Yesterday, 08:49 AM   #4049
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,140
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Optiongeek, what you’re posting is not science, it’s numerology.



Or, at best, creating fitting formulae.



Playing with numbers in a spreadsheet can be fun! There are all kinds of apparently magical near coincidences, which you can easily leverage to make a very impressive match. Try it yourself!



And this part of the ISF is about science, not numerology. Mills’ BBoBB fails, as science, in sooooo many ways; no impressive fitting formulae can hide the key science failures.

I think you’re being a bit harsh.

Numerology is a perfectly cromulent paradigm for a religious belief system whose “proofs” are a mechanical analogue to psychic surgery.

Of course that begs the question of why this thread hasn’t been moved to the religion section.
__________________
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 Yesterday, 08:50 AM   #4050
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,245
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Thank you, HappySkeptic99. Let me expand on your point 5 by stating the numbers. In the December 2018 edition of Mills's Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (aka the Big Book of Boo-boos), Mills is still citing experimental values published in 1987 and 1988. Those are the experimental values given here by optiongeek:




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

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

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

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

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

I refrained from writing anything until I got answers from her on sources and uncertainties (a.k.a. error bars). Which she never did.

In general, I find this sort of discussion fundamentally dishonest, on optiongeek’s part. It’s perfectly OK to adopt a non-science, or even anti-science, approach, even in this ISF section ... but at least be honest about it.
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 Yesterday, 08:58 AM   #4051
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,245
Originally Posted by optiongeek View Post
I appreciate you and W.D. Clinger taking a serious look at the derivation leading up to 1.228 and you raise some valid, but IMHO not entirely consequential concerns. In particular, the second term is in fact the energy stored in the electric field. The important factor here, 2/3, comes from the integral solved in equation 1.156/1.157. This result comes from the electrodynamics of the orbitsphere, which was designed to match the boundary condition of the Stern-Gerlach experiment. Mills didn't start out trying to calculate the correct value for the spin flip, he started out trying to match the Stern Gerlach. It just so happened that when he did, the Poynting theorem provided a value for the spin flip that matched experiment. That's the fundamental obstacle you need to overcome to disprove Mills' derivation.

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

In terms of the accuracy of the equations, I have no basis to judge the relative claims of experimentalists on how accurate their measurements are. All I can do is assess the potential motives and at what point they hit diminishing returns in terms of credibility when claiming ever increasing levels of confidence.
Where is the science in this, optiongeek?

I see the logical fallacies Argument from Incredulity, and False Dichotomy. I see a disdain for empirical, published experimental results. And denial of multiple failures and inconsistencies in the BBoBB.

Perhaps you could tell us how you think science, and in particular physics, should work? Which parts of the scientific method do you reject, or seek to downplay?
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 Yesterday, 09:37 AM   #4052
optiongeek
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Where is the science in this, optiongeek?

I see the logical fallacies Argument from Incredulity, and False Dichotomy. I see a disdain for empirical, published experimental results. And denial of multiple failures and inconsistencies in the BBoBB.

Perhaps you could tell us how you think science, and in particular physics, should work? Which parts of the scientific method do you reject, or seek to downplay?
Do you agree that equation 1.156/1.157 correctly evaluates the integral? I believe it fairly represents the physics of the orbitsphere as described in the preceding text. And then when I plug it into my integral solver, I get the same result as shown. Can you show how these equations fail?

edit: as an aid, the following text:
(mu / 2) * integrate integrate integrate (((e * h) / (m * rho^3))^2 * (cos^2(theta) + sin^2(theta)) * r^2 * sin(theta)) dr dtheta dphi over 0 to rho over 0 to 2 * pi over 0 to pi
when plugged into the Wolfram Alpha tool shows the correct results.

Last edited by optiongeek; Yesterday at 09:50 AM.
optiongeek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:35 PM   #4053
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,482
the comedy continues

We should thank optiongeek for continuing to demonstrate how easy it has been for Mills to impress the scientifically illiterate audience at which he aimed his Big Book of Boo-Boos.

Originally Posted by optiongeek View Post
Do you agree that equation 1.156/1.157 correctly evaluates the integral? I believe it fairly represents the physics of the orbitsphere as described in the preceding text. And then when I plug it into my integral solver, I get the same result as shown. Can you show how these equations fail?

edit: as an aid, the following text:
(mu / 2) * integrate integrate integrate (((e * h) / (m * rho^3))^2 * (cos^2(theta) + sin^2(theta)) * r^2 * sin(theta)) dr dtheta dphi over 0 to rho over 0 to 2 * pi over 0 to pi
when plugged into the Wolfram Alpha tool shows the correct results.

Mills equation (1.156) really is the integral stated above by optiongeek, with some typographical simplifications (such as substituting rho for r1 and writing h instead of the reduced Planck constant). In what follows, I will continue to use optiongeek's notation above.

Scientifically literate readers would notice right away that the (cos^2(theta) + sin^2(theta)) part of equation (1.156) is technobabble for the number 1.

Anyone who has taken first-semester calculus would then notice that the ((e * h) / (m * rho^3))^2 part of equation (1.156) is a constant that can be moved to the left of the integral signs.

First-semester calculus students would also notice that the outermost integral, with phi running from 0 to 2pi, has exactly the same effect as multiplying the result of integrating the two inner integrals by 2pi, because phi does not appear anywhere within those inner integrals.

First-semester calculus students would also notice that the sin(theta) can be moved out of the inner integral because theta does not vary over the integration of r^2 from 0 to rho.

First-semester calculus students know the anti-derivative of r^2 is r^3/3, so they would then obtain rho^3/3 as the value of that simplified innermost integral. Since rho does not appear within the sin(theta) expression, that rho^3/3 becomes a multiplicative constant that can be moved outside the one remaining integral, which integrates sin(theta) d theta from 0 to pi.

First-semester calculus students would know that the anti-derivative of sin(theta) is -cos(theta), so the value of that one remaining integral is (- cos(pi) - (- cos(0))) = 2.

High-school algebra students know how to simplify (mu/2) (eh/(m rho^3))^2 2 pi (rho^3/3) 2, obtaining 2/3 (mu e^2 h^2 / (m^2 rho^3)) pi, which (rearranged slightly) is Mills equation (1.157).

To a scientifically literate reader, what's impressive about Mills equations (1.156) and (1.157) is that Mills inserted the (cos^2(theta) + sin^2(theta)) and failed to perform any of the obvious simplifications in equation (1.156). I can think of no reason for Mills to have written equation (1.156) the way he did unless he was trying to impress people like optiongeek with the sort of integral that first-semester calculus students would be expected to solve in about three minutes while taking their final exam.

ETA: If optiongeek wishes to continue this conversation, he should explain where the (cos^2(theta) + sin^2(theta)) in equation (1.156) came from, and why he thinks Mills decided to write the number 1 that way in that equation.

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; Yesterday at 02:52 PM. Reason: added note about optiongeek's renaming of variables
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:02 PM   #4054
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,245
Originally Posted by optiongeek View Post
Do you agree that equation 1.156/1.157 correctly evaluates the integral? I believe it fairly represents the physics of the orbitsphere as described in the preceding text. And then when I plug it into my integral solver, I get the same result as shown. Can you show how these equations fail?

edit: as an aid, the following text:
(mu / 2) * integrate integrate integrate (((e * h) / (m * rho^3))^2 * (cos^2(theta) + sin^2(theta)) * r^2 * sin(theta)) dr dtheta dphi over 0 to rho over 0 to 2 * pi over 0 to pi
when plugged into the Wolfram Alpha tool shows the correct results.
I’m afraid you’ve totally lost me, optiongeek. I have no idea how what you posted in any way relates to my questions.

Can you clarify please?
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 Yesterday, 07:04 PM   #4055
Mike!
Official Ponylandistanian National Treasure. Respect it!
 
Mike!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ponylandistan! Where the bacon grows on trees! Can it get any better than that? I submit it can not!
Posts: 30,427
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
I think you’re being a bit harsh.

Numerology is a perfectly cromulent paradigm for a religious belief system whose “proofs” are a mechanical analogue to psychic surgery.

Of course that begs the question of why this thread hasn’t been moved to the religion section.
I would argue it belongs in Humor.
__________________
"Never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes...
Because then it won't really matter, you’ll be a mile away and have his shoes."
Mike! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 03:25 PM.
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.