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.
Reply
Old 15th July 2018, 08:01 AM   #1201
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,034
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.
Nope, the mathematical quantification of "a whole, indivisible unit" does not include parts of it moving in opposing directions through the same points at the same time. The "reason continuous loops of mass-charge are depicted at all is to "depict motions simply not possible in "a whole, indivisible unit".


Originally Posted by markie View Post
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.
"finding a point charge" refutes "never a single point charge itself". As it is explicitly "a point charge" whenever found.


Originally Posted by markie View Post
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.
A "spinning disk of charge" is not an electron "found to be point" nor does it "approximating a point".
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 15th July 2018, 11:14 AM   #1202
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,800
Originally Posted by Dabop View Post
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-feder...t/1362587.html



Oh yes how DID that lawsuit go markie????

(give you a hint, try searching for the patent concerned)
Cool!

I particularly like this part: "By Declaration filed in the district court, Group Director Kepplinger stated that upon reading the patent her “main concern was the proposition that the applicant was claiming the electron going to a lower orbital in a fashion that I knew was contrary to the known laws of physics and chemistry.”"

IOW, Mills: get your Nobel Prizes in Physics and Chemistry first, then apply for patents for drop-in replacement engines for Hilux utes.

When do you think Mills will be awarded a Nobel Prize, markie?
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 15th July 2018, 02:20 PM   #1203
Lurch
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 458
The truly fervent supporters of the obvious cons such as this one perpetrated by Mills remind me of flat earthers, and CTers in general. Nothing can ever be seen as a red flag. No amount of evidence can shake their faith. Not only do they remain impervious to reason, they subvert reason itself; they reason themselves out of ever constraining unreasonableness by adopting unreason. It's a fascinating, frustrating, frightful process to witness.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2018, 03:14 PM   #1204
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,167
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
For instance, some have said that the mass density of the orbitsphere would be infinite based on the notion that if the orbitsphere has mass and is infinitely thin then density = mass/volume is undefined and is therefore a singularity.
That is the easily understood way of showing that Mills delusions start with a spherical singularity. The point is that it is Mills who whines about singularities in QM invalidating QM but does not do the some about his singularity.

More exactly we would talk about happens to a sphere with mass and charge and a finite thickness as that thickness dr goes to zero. The mass and change densities tend to infinity as dr goes to zero. Replace dr with r and we get the point singularity at the center of black holes or the Big Bang as t goes to 0.

Another way to see that there is something strange happening at the surface is that the external forces go as 1/r^2 down to r = R (the radius of a hydrogen atom) but the internal forces are zero. The discontinuity at r = R suggests a singularity.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2018, 03:19 PM   #1205
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,167
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
In Mills' theory, mass is electromagnetic in origin ....
More Mills insanity if you are right. Mass is not electromagnetic in origin. For example neutral neutrinos have mass. The existence of the Higgs boson means that mass for gauge bosons is from the Higgs mechanism.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2018, 03:25 PM   #1206
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,167
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
I completely agree. My comment was simply a response to being accused of randomly mashing words together
You were repeating Mills "mass is electromagnetic in origin" word salad. It was Mills who was randomly mashing words together. What we can derive from the post is that it is ignorant about the origin of mass in working science. There is also the small point that neutrinos have mass.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2018, 03:34 PM   #1207
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,167
Thumbs down Parrots Mills delusions about electrons (speed of light surface)

Originally Posted by markie View Post
In Mills' model the surface does not move faster than light speed. For one, the electron's orbitsphere is much larger than Kronig's, who envisioned the electron as a small sphere in orbit. ...
16 July 2018 markie: Parrots Mills delusions about electrons being spherical singularities (speed of light surface).

Yes: The original "electrons cannot be an extended body because their surface would be moving greater then the speed of light" argument was calculated using the classical radius of an electron. An argument from ignorance (no calculation) does not make Mills delusions correct.

The measured radius of bound electrons is orders of magnitude less than the classical radius !

This is in fact one of Mills lies. QM usually uses point particles but we can apply QM apply to extended particles. We can then investigate the match with experimental results. and ask the question: How big do the extended objects have to be before theory does not match experiments?
Observation of a single electron in a Penning trap suggests the upper limit of the particle's radius to be 10−22 meters

16 July 2018 markie: Parrots Mills "superposition of movements" gibberish.

Last edited by Reality Check; 15th July 2018 at 03:56 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2018, 03:43 PM   #1208
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,167
Thumbs down A lie that Mills' delusions explains spin when he includes some properties

Originally Posted by markie View Post
In Mills' theory, spin is explained.
16 July 2018 markie: A lie that Mills' delusions explains spin when all he does is include some properties of spin.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2018, 03:55 PM   #1209
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,167
Thumbs down A "In QM, spin in 'intrinsic'" partial lie

Originally Posted by markie View Post
In QM, spin in 'intrinsic', in other words, just a given with no physical mechanism.
16 July 2018 markie: A "In QM, spin in 'intrinsic'" partial lie
It is experiments that show that spin is an intrinsic property of fundamental properties such as electrons. He knows about the Stern-Gerlach experiment. Calculations show that an electron with an extended surface (even magnitudes bigger than its upper limit) and measured spin has a surface moving faster than the speed of light.

Including relativity in QM to get the Dirac equation gives us an equation that actually describes spin.

What describes a property in physics is the equations that match the experiments. These have kind of "physical mechanisms". GR has mass and energy bending spacetime. QM has fundamental particles have a non-classical spin that is intrinsic.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2018, 05:50 PM   #1210
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,696
Originally Posted by markie View Post
I still don't understand why you think Mills doesn't doesn't "put up ANY legal defense to protect his intellectual property" when guys like Phil Johnson are on his advisory board and information like this are in his business report:


Patents and Proprietary Technology Advantage
• Main priority is to file and obtain patents relating to the BlackLight Process, systems, and applications of the process.
• 68 issued patents provide coverage in many major energy markets (4 in the U.S.), and greater than 100 pending applications have been filed with important applications in U.S.
• World-wide applications related to the solid fuels process and thermal power plants were filed on April 24, 2008 and July 30, 2009.
• Worldwide applications on the breakthrough energetic plasma producing SunCells® entitled “Power Generation Systems and Methods Regarding Same”, filed Jan 2014
• “Photovoltaic Power Generation Systems and Methods Regarding the Same”; application April 2014
• “Electrical Power Generation Systems and Methods Regarding Same”, application May 2015
• “Ultraviolet Electrical Generation Systems and Methods Regarding Same”, application Dec
2015
• “Thermophotovoltaic Electrical Power Generator”, application Jan 2016
• Corresponding applications have been filed or granted in over 50 foreign countries.
• The Company anticipates that the string of patent applications will provide broad patent protection, if these applications ultimately issue as patents.



ETA : for your amusement: https://www.ranker.com/list/the-craz.../robert-wabash
Yes. Very nice. Most of those have already been discussed earlier. There's a lot of crap that's been filled but not granted, or only filled in one country. A good deal of them don't even pertain to the tech BLP claims to be working on now. In some cases the process of getting international parent protection had been started but never completed. Them there's the fact that patents expire. Take a look at some of the granted patents and their expiration dates. It's fun reading for anyone who believes in Hydrinos and wants to steal BLP's work.

I'm not rehashing old conversations if you can't even be bothered to look up the conversations we've already had about BLP's comically ineffective patent portfolio.

By the way, as Theranos proved, you can have a lot of supposedly smart people on your board and keep them in the dark. Phil Johnson's alleged presence on the board doesn't mean anything.

Last edited by halleyscomet; 15th July 2018 at 05:53 PM.
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 15th July 2018, 06:37 PM   #1211
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,167
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
16 July 2018 markie: A lie that Mills' delusions explains spin when all he does is include some properties of spin.
Just to make this clearer for others, what Mills does is add a classical spin to his electron delusions with a magnitude of +/- h bar and states that this classical spin has a quantized direction. No math in his theory makes that spin that size or quantized. He then has to do the same for the different spins of other fundamental particles.

He misses out sequential Stern-Gerlach experiments where we feed one of the beams of electrons with a specific spin into a second apparatus at a different angle. As far as I recall, the probability of resulting electron spin varies with orientation according to QM, not classical spin.

He misses out deriving the statistics of systems of spin. This is vitally important since this leads to the Pauli exclusion principle and the structure of the periodic table.

There is also the interesting but only slightly relevant Dirac Three Polarizers Experiment written about in a 1930 textbook about the quantum aspects that mean that we get do not get classical results for a single photon but tend toward classic result for multiple photons.

Last edited by Reality Check; 15th July 2018 at 06:46 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2018, 05:45 AM   #1212
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,034
Right Reality Check which means Mills' electron 'orbitsphere' is spinning (by his own postulate) just one direction (+ or -). Making all the sub ring counter rotating every which way to visualize and mathematically quantify stuff just malarkey, even if you weren't treating the 'orbitsphere' as a whole.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 16th July 2018 at 05:46 AM.
The Man 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 16th July 2018, 11:06 AM   #1213
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,800
Wot!?!

Mills is not going to get a Nobel Prize in physics for the work he has done, as recorded in ToMM?!?

But, but, ... GUTCHOP GUTCOP GUTCUP (as markie calls ToMM) is a masterpiece of the application of simple mathematics magic to understand the nature of hydrinos, which anyone with a good Raman spectroscope can easily detect, right?

So UNFAIR that Mills will not get a Nobel Prize for ToMM (the Tome on Mills' 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 16th July 2018, 05:21 PM   #1214
markie
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 970
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Just to make this clearer for others, what Mills does is add a classical spin to his electron delusions with a magnitude of +/- h bar and states that this classical spin has a quantized direction. No math in his theory makes that spin that size or quantized. He then has to do the same for the different spins of other fundamental particles.

He misses out sequential Stern-Gerlach experiments where we feed one of the beams of electrons with a specific spin into a second apparatus at a different angle. As far as I recall, the probability of resulting electron spin varies with orientation according to QM, not classical spin.

He misses out deriving the statistics of systems of spin. This is vitally important since this leads to the Pauli exclusion principle and the structure of the periodic table.

There is also the interesting but only slightly relevant Dirac Three Polarizers Experiment written about in a 1930 textbook about the quantum aspects that mean that we get do not get classical results for a single photon but tend toward classic result for multiple photons.

At least, RC makes a relatively substantive post, so I will reply.

As I have mentioned before, yes indeed Mills assumes and uses h bar for both spin angular momentum and for orbital angular momentum, and assumes that spin is non dissipative, that is, conserved. Mills assumes some other things as well, which I have mentioned previously. The thing to note is what Mills can predict with these assumptions. Breathtaking really. G factor? Check. Lamb shift? Check. Ionization energies of all atoms or ions with fewer than 21 electrons? Check. Excited state lifetimes? Check. Masses of fundamental particles? Check. And so on.

About further iterations of the Stern and Gerlach experiments, yes afaik Mill has not addressed those specifically. But one knows exactly how he would. Just look at the Aspect experiment in Mills's Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUTCP). Using his equations of the photon and given the angle between polarizers Mills correctly reproduces Aspects coincidence results. No non locality nonsense required, and only classical, causal physics used with deterministic statistics. No hidden variables either, so Bell's theorem has no application.

Mills does not need the merely postulated Pauli exclusion principle or Hund's rule for that matter; they are deduced from classical physics and Mill's model of the electron and orbitals.
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 16th July 2018, 05:42 PM   #1215
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,167
Thumbs down Mills lies about his model and the hydrogen Lamb shift

Originally Posted by markie View Post
At least, RC makes a relatively substantive post, so I will reply.
By repeating what we already know.
Mills has the delusion that he can just add a few parts of QM to a classical theory. Then he has delusions about predicting Lamb shift, etc. that you mindlessly parrot.

This is Lamb shift
Quote:
In physics, the Lamb shift, named after Willis Lamb, is a difference in energy between two energy levels 2S1/2 and 2P1/2 (in term symbol notation) of the hydrogen atom which was not predicted by the Dirac equation, according to which these states should have the same energy.

Interaction between vacuum energy fluctuations and the hydrogen electron in these different orbitals is the cause of the Lamb shift, as was shown subsequent to its discovery. The Lamb shift has since played a significant role through vacuum energy fluctuations in theoretical prediction of Hawking radiation from black holes.
Mills has Hydrogen Lamb Shift stupidity starting on page 152 ("calculated from the radiation reaction force and the atom recoil energy due to photon emission"). As we have pointed out many times before, basic electromagnetism means his hydrogen proton is disconnected from his sphere delusion. There is no "atom recoil".

He ends with a lie of good agreement between his predicted and the experimental value.

17 July 2018: Page 152: Mills lies that a hydrogen atom recoils on emitting a photon because he disconnects the electron from the proton.
The force between a charge inside a uniform shall of charges and the shell is zero. Mills proton is free to move inside his electron shell.

17 July 2018: Page 155: Mills lies that his predicted value agrees with the experimental value of the hydrogen Lamb shift
Experimental value = 1057.845 MHz. His value = 1057.09 MHz These are different values.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2018, 05:44 PM   #1216
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,167
Originally Posted by markie View Post
About further iterations of the Stern and Gerlach experiments, yes afaik Mill has not addressed those specifically.
And cannot because (from memory) these produce results that are impossible under classical physics.

Last edited by Reality Check; 16th July 2018 at 06:06 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2018, 05:53 PM   #1217
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,167
Thumbs down Mills insanity of obvious lying about Aspect et al. (1982)

Originally Posted by markie View Post
But one knows exactly how he would. Just look at the Aspect experiment in Mills's Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUTCP).
More Mills insanity that you mindlessly parrot. The "Aspect experiment" is one of the experiments on Bells theorem testing an inequality about QM, not classical physics.

17 July 2018: Page 1640: Mills insanity of obvious lying about Aspect et al. (1982) (the 2nd of 15 tests of Bell's theorem).
Lie 1: Aspect Experimental Results Are Predicted Classically.
Lie 2: Aspect Experimental Results Are Not Predicted by Quantum Mechanics.
Aspect et al. (1982) ruled out local hidden variable theories (so implying ruling out classical physics) and the results were consistent with non-local, non-hidden QM.

Bell's theorem is a way to test whether a certain class of theories can reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. Those 15 experiments show that
Quote:
Such results would support the position that there is no way to explain the phenomena of quantum mechanics in terms of a more fundamental description of nature that is more in line with the rules of classical physics

Last edited by Reality Check; 16th July 2018 at 06:05 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2018, 02:25 PM   #1218
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,034
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Mills does not need the merely postulated Pauli exclusion principle or Hund's rule for that matter; they are deduced from classical physics and Mill's model of the electron and orbitals.
Ah, so they are "deduced from" the bunch of other self-contradictory crap he "merely postulated".
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 17th July 2018, 02:45 PM   #1219
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,727
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Mills does not need the merely postulated Pauli exclusion principle or Hund's rule for that matter; they are deduced from classical physics and Mill's model of the electron and orbitals.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA. That is some industrial grade baloney right there. Hund and Pauli deduced their principles from classical physics and Mill's model. Apparently, Mills has mastered time travel and classical physics knew all about QM since Newton.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2018, 03:51 PM   #1220
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,696
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
BWAHAHAHAHAHA. That is some industrial grade baloney right there. Hund and Pauli deduced their principles from classical physics and Mill's model. Apparently, Mills has mastered time travel and classical physics knew all about QM since Newton.


You’re replying to a guy who thinks it’s a good idea to invest in a company with a 30 year track record of failure and who admits the founder makes up timeframes (lies) when talking about eventual products.

Pesky things like timeline and cause / effect have little meaning in such a context.
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 17th July 2018, 04:20 PM   #1221
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,167
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
BWAHAHAHAHAHA. That is some industrial grade baloney right there. Hund and Pauli deduced their principles from classical physics and Mill's model. Apparently, Mills has mastered time travel and classical physics knew all about QM since Newton.
That is not quite what markie's ignorant faith in Mills has produced. markie is as usual merely parroting Mills delusions. This is Mills taking his delusions about the electron and orbitals and apparently coming up with the Pauli exclusion principle and Hund's rule.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2018, 04:27 PM   #1222
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,167
Thumbs down A "merely postulated Pauli exclusion principle or Hund's rule" lie

Originally Posted by markie View Post
Mills does not need the merely postulated Pauli exclusion principle ....
18 July 2018 markie: A "merely postulated Pauli exclusion principle or Hund's rule" lie.

The Pauli exclusion principle started with Pauli considering the fact that even numbers of electrons give more chemically stable atoms and molecules. That gave the principle of 1 electron per state and the introduction of a two valued state, i.e. electron spin. That is a principle derived from empirical evidence.

Ditto for Hund's rules (The first is Hund's Rule). These are rules based on empirical evidence.

This is a good example of markie blindly parroting Mills deluded book. See the gibberish on page 5 starting "purely postulated Hund’s Rule and the Pauli Exclusion Principle ..."

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th July 2018 at 04:34 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2018, 04:47 PM   #1223
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: 28,733
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
BWAHAHAHAHAHA. That is some industrial grade baloney right there. Hund and Pauli deduced their principles from classical physics and Mill's model. Apparently, Mills has mastered time travel and classical physics knew all about QM since Newton.
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
You’re replying to a guy who thinks it’s a good idea to invest in a company with a 30 year track record of failure and who admits the founder makes up timeframes (lies) when talking about eventual products.

Pesky things like timeline and cause / effect have little meaning in such a context.
Well, you know, when you have a means for time travel, they do become a little less significant.
Which, of course, begs the point, why hasn't he traveled to some point in the future, where he's mastered the unlimited power of the Hydreno, and then brought that secret back to the present, or better still, 30 years ago, saving himself all the trouble of figuring, and refiguring, it all out time and again, thus becoming a self fulfilling prophecy worthy of legend instead of looking like a scam artist?
I think that alone proves that he remains a failure throughout his entire life. Well, that and never doing anything really useful with that whole time travel thing ether.
__________________
"Never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes...
Because then it won't really matter, you’ll be a mile away and have his shoes."

Last edited by Mike!; 17th July 2018 at 04:54 PM.
Mike! is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2018, 04:48 PM   #1224
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,167
Thumbs down A lie about Mills "deduction" of the Pauli exclusion principle - it is a fantasy

Originally Posted by markie View Post
Mills does not need the merely postulated Pauli exclusion principle or Hund's rule for that matter; they are deduced from classical physics and Mill's model of the electron and orbitals.
18 July 2018 markie: A lie about Mills "deduction" of the Pauli exclusion principle - it is a fantasy, not a deduction.

18 July 2018 markie: A lie about Mills "deduction" of Hund's rule which does not exist.

18 July 2018: Page 1411: Mills writes a fairy story about two of his electron delusions giving the Pauli exclusion principle.

What configuration would a rational person think that 2 of Mills "electrons" (charged spheres) would take? They should be on top of each other. The result would be a doubly charged, doubly massive "electron". They may be inside each other. Mills takes an "Electrons pair as opposite mirror-image current" fantasy and spins a story that the fantasy makes 2 "electrons" have opposite spins.

18 July 2018: Page 1411: Insane Bose-Einstein gibberish, e.g. ignores most bosons, "electron resonator cavities" insanity.

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th July 2018 at 04:53 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2018, 04:54 PM   #1225
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,931
Originally Posted by markie View Post
Mills does not need the merely postulated Pauli exclusion principle or Hund's rule for that matter; they are deduced from classical physics and Mill's model of the electron and orbitals.
Yeah, screw Pauli, eh? Let's ditch the Periodic Table. That's pretty much junk, anyway. No wonder I had so much trouble with it at Primary School! Nice one, eh, Markie?
That neutron star binary merger? You know the one? How the hell are you doing that without Pauli, dear? What about White Dwarves? I could go on, but it'd be pointless, given that we are dealing with A True Believer. Ergo, Markie, you are still talking crap. Yes? Will it ever stop? Of course it won't. You are as wedded to this garbage as Catholics are to................catholic stuff. Hmm?
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is 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 17th July 2018, 05:50 PM   #1226
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,800
Originally Posted by markie View Post
<snip>

The thing to note is what Mills can predict with these assumptions. Breathtaking really. G factor? Check. Lamb shift? Check. Ionization energies of all atoms or ions with fewer than 21 electrons? Check. Excited state lifetimes? Check. Masses of fundamental particles? Check. And so on.

<snip>
RC has already addressed most of the rest of this remarkable post of yours, markie, and some of this one too.

If you go back into the history of discussion of Mills and his ToMM etc, you'll see that some people decided to check these remarkable claims. Guess what they found? No "Check"s at all.

Here's a suggestion: take Mills' so-called predictions, and search for the most recent papers which report the experimental results on the values for these. Be sure to note the confidence limits.

Put them into a table.

Mills gets a "Check" only when his prediction is within the experimental limits, no exceptions; specifically, "close" is not "Check" (RC has already posted an example).

If you're really keen, you could carefully note which "predictions" were truly made before any measured values were published. You may not believe this, but it is actually very easy to "reverse engineer" remarkably good values, and create a framework for "predicting" them, one that looks quite rational. However, it gets much harder to do this for very precisely determined values (e.g. the electron "g-2", ditto g-2 for the muon), and for values which change as better experiments get done. And there's history: check out the long and winding road of efforts to nail down alpha (the fine-structure "constant"), and the myriad of very rational predictions of its value.
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 18th July 2018, 11:51 AM   #1227
UncertainH
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
More Mills insanity if you are right. Mass is not electromagnetic in origin. For example neutral neutrinos have mass. The existence of the Higgs boson means that mass for gauge bosons is from the Higgs mechanism.
Point of clarification: being neutral does not mean something is not electromagnetic. Photons are quite definitely neutral and massless but are electromagnetic. The various theories that have been put forth over the years of course are far more complicated than simply saying that if something is electromagnetic then it must have mass.

The electromagnetic origin of mass is an old topic probably started by J.J. Thompson in 1881. Inquiries and theoretical studies on this topic continue to this day by reputable physicists who don't buy into the Higgs mechanism or who are at least willing to question the status quo.

There are still problems with the standard model and just about every other theory used to describe the physical world. It would be arrogant to presume that we have all the answers or to declare that 'mass comes from Higgs period'

I would be very willing to participate in another thread on this topic (separate from Mills and gutcp) if anyone is interested.
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 18th July 2018, 02:03 PM   #1228
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,167
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Point of clarification: being neutral does not mean something is not electromagnetic. Photons are quite definitely neutral and massless but are electromagnetic. ....
Which sort of emphasizes the insanity you ascribe to Mills! The photon is electromagnetic, "mass is electromagnetic in origin" so where is the mass of a photon?

You are thinking about the outdated concept of electromagnetic mass. J. J. Thomson in 1881 saw that a charged sphere in an aether would act as if it had mass. By 1887, an aether had been ruled out by the Michelson–Morley experiment. Special relativity shows that the mass equivalence of a body is related to its total energy. An electromagnetic origin of mass was then abandoned with some later work on the theory itself.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 05:31 PM   #1229
UncertainH
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Which sort of emphasizes the insanity you ascribe to Mills! The photon is electromagnetic, "mass is electromagnetic in origin" so where is the mass of a photon?

You are thinking about the outdated concept of electromagnetic mass. J. J. Thomson in 1881 saw that a charged sphere in an aether would act as if it had mass. By 1887, an aether had been ruled out by the Michelson–Morley experiment. Special relativity shows that the mass equivalence of a body is related to its total energy. An electromagnetic origin of mass was then abandoned with some later work on the theory itself.
Actually, that is not what I was thinking at all. Do a search on the electromagnetic origin of mass and limit your results to things published in the last 10 or 20 years. Here's a few:

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_28.html

https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0284

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0010/0010050.pdf

http://www.calphysics.org/articles/zpf_staif98.pdf

They are all a little different and have nothing to do with Mills so I guess its a little off topic.
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 18th July 2018, 06:49 PM   #1230
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,167
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Actually, that is not what I was thinking at all. ....
Your list starts with a Feynman lecture from 1964 on the electromagnetic mass as in the Wikipedia article I cited. He derives the 3/4 problem (EM gives E = 3/4 mc^2) and goes onto proposed theoretical solutions from Dirac and others.
His points:
Quote:
We only wish to emphasize here the following points: (1) the electromagnetic theory predicts the existence of an electromagnetic mass, but it also falls on its face in doing so, because it does not produce a consistent theory—and the same is true with the quantum modifications; (2) there is experimental evidence for the existence of electromagnetic mass; and (3) all these masses are roughly the same as the mass of an electron. So we come back again to the original idea of Lorentz—maybe all the mass of an electron is purely electromagnetic, maybe the whole 0.511 MeV is due to electrodynamics. Is it or isn’t it? We haven’t got a theory, so we cannot say.

A paper on how a spherical charge distribution solves the "4/3 mass paradox". But electrons are massive and not spheres!

An unpublished since 2000, possibly crank, pre-print ("A Physical Origin for Mass and Charge").

An irrelevant "An electromagnetic basis for inertia and gravitation: What are the implications for 21st century physics and technology?" conference proceeding.

Last edited by Reality Check; 18th July 2018 at 06:50 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2018, 06:57 PM   #1231
UncertainH
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Your list starts with a Feynman lecture from 1964 on the electromagnetic mass as in the Wikipedia article I cited. He derives the 3/4 problem (EM gives E = 3/4 mc^2) and goes onto proposed theoretical solutions from Dirac and others.
His points:



A paper on how a spherical charge distribution solves the "4/3 mass paradox". But electrons are massive and not spheres!

An unpublished since 2000, possibly crank, pre-print ("A Physical Origin for Mass and Charge").

An irrelevant "An electromagnetic basis for inertia and gravitation: What are the implications for 21st century physics and technology?" conference proceeding.
Well done RC
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 18th July 2018, 08:14 PM   #1232
UncertainH
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
But electrons are massive and not spheres!
I'm not even sure what you mean by this sentence, but you say it with such confidence.

Here's something that seems to indicate that they are perfect spheres

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...dipole-moment/
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 18th July 2018, 09:07 PM   #1233
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,167
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
I'm not even sure what you mean by this sentence. ...
I meant "But electrons are massive and not spheres". They act as point particles.
Not Mills' delusions.
Not "spherical" implying sphere in a science article title. The actual result was that the electron is symmetrical which suggests a point particle or a sphere. This is however an interesting derail into actual science.
Order of Magnitude Smaller Limit on the Electric Dipole Moment of the Electron
Supersymmetry theories predict a none-zero electric dipole moment. The measurement excludes theories that do not predict smaller dipole moments.

Last edited by Reality Check; 18th July 2018 at 09:11 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2018, 06:19 AM   #1234
UncertainH
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
I meant "But electrons are massive and not spheres". They act as point particles.
Not Mills' delusions.
Not "spherical" implying sphere in a science article title. The actual result was that the electron is symmetrical which suggests a point particle or a sphere. This is however an interesting derail into actual science.
Order of Magnitude Smaller Limit on the Electric Dipole Moment of the Electron
Supersymmetry theories predict a none-zero electric dipole moment. The measurement excludes theories that do not predict smaller dipole moments.
Indeed. Now if supersymmetry is dead (which may or may not be the case) this would cause trouble with the Higgs hierarchy problem which require yet more "fine tuning" of the standard model or new physics to explain. This is off topic for this thread but simply illustrates to me that we should not consider our current theories so correct that we do not investigate and consider alternatives. Even going back to first principles and starting over. Some theories that have obvious problems can sometimes have some seeds of ideas that might be useful for future work.

“Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won't come in.”

― Isaac Asimov
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 19th July 2018, 02:16 PM   #1235
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 22,167
Originally Posted by UncertainH View Post
Indeed. Now if supersymmetry is dead (which may or may not be the case) this would cause trouble with the Higgs hierarchy problem which require yet more "fine tuning" of the standard model or new physics to explain. This is off topic for this thread but simply illustrates to me that we should not consider our current theories so correct that we do not investigate and consider alternatives. Even going back to first principles and starting over. Some theories that have obvious problems can sometimes have some seeds of ideas that might be useful for future work.
The hierarchy problem (not just for the Higgs boson) is not strictly a problem for the Standard Model where the Higgs boson mass is a parameter, not a calculated value. We expect the Higgs boson mass to be much larger than it is measured from considerations of quantum contributions.

We do investigate and consider alternatives. These alternatives have to include at least 1 Higgs boson because we have discovered it. Thus AFAIK they include the Higgs mechanism as an origin for mass (however maybe there is some way of getting rid of it and keeping the boson).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2018, 03:31 PM   #1236
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 82,113
All very interesting I’m sure.

Where’s the working heater/generator?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2018, 04:59 PM   #1237
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,931
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
All very interesting I’m sure.

Where’s the working heater/generator?
It'll be in your Argos catalogue shortly! Trust us on this; £200 gets you advanced access to this incredible............ woo! Nobody can explain how it works, but it does! Happy days, eh?
On the other hand, you could invest the £200 in the company, and stand to make a good return on your money, if this (scientifically impossible) idea ever comes to pass.
Did you get by in high school science? Are you not scientifically illiterate? Good. In which case, keep your money in your trousers. Don't be fooled by con artists like Mills, or Markie, or Michael Suede.
In short, it is garbage. Nobody with any sort of scientific understanding of the relevant science believes otherwise. Only fan boys of the con-artist-in-chief, Mills, are plugging this woo.
Eh, Markie?
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is 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 Yesterday, 04:03 AM   #1238
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,033
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
All very interesting I’m sure.

Where’s the working heater/generator?
First, get yourself a spot welder...
__________________
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
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 06:41 AM.
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.