
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. 
Yesterday, 09:03 PM  #4041 
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,482

Although optiongeek says he is quoting an equation from Mills's BBoBB, this particular booboo might be original with optiongeek:
In the December 2018 edition, Mills's equation (1.35) actually says v_{n} = ℏ / (m_{e}r_{n}), where ℏ is the reduced Planck constant (which might be hard to discern, depending on the font you use to read this). If v_{n} 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 BooBoos, I believe Mills wants v_{n} 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. 
Yesterday, 09:45 PM  #4042 
Scholar
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 64

Actually, I get 5.4089 when I do the GUTCPbased 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 QMcalculated value? 
Yesterday, 09:49 PM  #4043 
Scholar
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 64


Today, 05:14 AM  #4044 
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,482

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. Comparison: Code:
5.39171495 ; experimental value (per NIST) 5.39271223 ; calculated using quantum mechanics 5.40390 ; as calculated by Mills in his Big Book 
Today, 06:53 AM  #4045 
Scholar
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 64


Today, 07:33 AM  #4046 
Illuminator
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: 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 BooBoos. 
Today, 07:56 AM  #4047 
Scholar
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 64

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 B^{2+} (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 4electron 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 QMgenerated 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. 
Today, 08:40 AM  #4048 
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,244

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. 
Today, 08:49 AM  #4049 
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,140


__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation! 

Today, 08:50 AM  #4050 
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,244

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 nonscience, or even antiscience, approach, even in this ISF section ... but at least be honest about it. 
Today, 08:58 AM  #4051 
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,244

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? 
Today, 09:37 AM  #4052 
Scholar
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 64

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 piwhen plugged into the Wolfram Alpha tool shows the correct results. 
Today, 02:35 PM  #4053 
Illuminator
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 BooBoos.
Mills equation (1.156) really is the integral stated above by optiongeek, with some typographical simplifications (such as substituting rho for r_{1} 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 firstsemester 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. Firstsemester 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. Firstsemester 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. Firstsemester calculus students know the antiderivative 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. Firstsemester calculus students would know that the antiderivative of sin(theta) is cos(theta), so the value of that one remaining integral is ( cos(pi)  ( cos(0))) = 2. Highschool 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 firstsemester 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; Today at 02:52 PM. Reason: added note about optiongeek's renaming of variables 

Bookmarks 
Thread Tools  

