The JTEC is certainly interesting but I think the BLP reactor will have a higher power density than solar for most missions (anything that isn't many years running between the inner planets.) Of course, both could make use of the JTEC.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/
The 50 kW reactor currently being tested at Rowan is about the size of a basketball.
I want to link up this forum I've found recently, as it appears to be specific to nuclear propulsion as we are specific to spaceflight:
http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/
The JTEC is certainly interesting but I think the BLP reactor will have a higher power density than solar for most missions (anything that isn't many years running between the inner planets.) Of course, both could make use of the JTEC.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/
The 50 kW reactor currently being tested at Rowan is about the size of a basketball.
Oi, thats snake oil, there is no closer electron orbit.
The JTEC is certainly interesting but I think the BLP reactor will have a higher power density than solar for most missions (anything that isn't many years running between the inner planets.) Of course, both could make use of the JTEC.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/
The 50 kW reactor currently being tested at Rowan is about the size of a basketball.
Oi, thats snake oil, there is no closer electron orbit.
Yes there is. I believe they're referring to this.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html
There has been a huge controversy over the BLP claims ever since Mills originally strutted out his theory. I'm sure we don't want to open that can of worms here but let me just say, it is not true the BLP process has never been observed. That was true 15 years ago but it's not anything like true now. There have been many thousands of observations. There is raw physical evidence in hand of these "hydrino" crystals. There are the NIAC studies done years ago. There are many thousands of data points that demonstrate Mills' chemistry through use of the Millsian software, that clearly demonstrate Mills' theory is much better at predicting chemical reactions than the Bohr model. There are the working reactors being run at Rowan.
Truly, to get a grasp on all this takes hundreds or thousands of hours. I'm just saying as a philosopher who has been trained in handling evidence that we should never cast a casual glance and say Mills is wrong. If he's right at all, and there is an alarming amount of evidence to that affect now; then our understandings of chemistry and physics are all going to change over the next few decades. And truly, this is how science works. All revolution in scientific understanding meets exactly this kind of resistance. If it did not, the scientific process would not work.
But scientific revolutions aside, the fact is this reactor the size of a basketball is putting out power that can't be explained through recourse to status quo theory and that work is being done in the open at Rowan. I think it's fair to look at the raw evidence and ask "hey, where did all this energy come from?!" That's the point of the work at Rowan, not to validate Mills' theory but rather simply to show the protocols used to measure the power output of the reactor are sufficient to the task. And of course, this is why Rowan has an open offer for anyone to come and examine what they're doing. At this point, even EarthTech is not complaining and there is probably no one who knows more about these sorts of heat studies.
I suppose it's possible BLP might be looking at LENR but that would only explain the energy. It would not explain how Mill's model is so much more accurate in predicting molecular bonding energies than the Bohr model.
Sooner or later folks, one needs to look at the actual evidence. . .
I suppose it's possible BLP might be looking at LENR but that would only explain the energy. It would not explain how Mill's model is so much more accurate in predicting molecular bonding energies than the Bohr model.
Sooner or later folks, one needs to look at the actual evidence. . .
Can you point to any studies by particle physicists in a reputable lab observing hydrogen becoming hydrinos?
I don't want to get into a contest over this stuff but I think it's pretty telling that most of the folks who seem to object violently to BLP have yet to actually look at the evidence. Don't you?Yes, it's quite telling. In more than 10 years, BLP hasn't actually produced any evidence, despite pulling in millions from gullible investors.
They've already sold two commercial licenses. You'd think before an electrical utility forks out tens of millions in cash they'd want some evidence. But you say there is none. I bet you looked really carefully too. Poor electrical utilities. . .C'est domage.You mean poor utilities share holders. Big companies getting suckered isn't new. Look at the firepower fiasco in Australia.
The only thing that looks fishy in the least at BLP is the physics. Everything else has a lot of reasons to trust.Funny, it looks like a classic "fleece the investors with bogus science" scam to me. On a larger scale than most basement nutjobs, but not qualitatively different.
I don't trust BLP at their word except when, for example, my friends at CIA tell me that their board reads like a fortune 50 company and that none of these guys would ever dare get involved with something that isn't above board.You think these people are immune, or above fleecing suckers ? See firepower again. Those guys were selling a pill that would supposedly miraculously increase your gas mileage. Obvious baloney, but they pulled in millions and endorsements from all kinds of reputable people.
These are ex-CIA senior officers, ex-CEO's from places like Johnson and Johnson and Westinghouse IIRC. Why would guys like that risk their reputations selling a scam?Several options:
All with no evidence and completely ignoring the evidence for the science.ROFL. That's the whole problem... blacklight has no evidence, and, according to pretty much all of the physics community (including the astrophysicist you dismissed as a "hack journalist" (http://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=5138)) who have bothered to look at it, their "theory" is incoherent. But they sure are big on press releases and wild claims.
The first commercial-grade pilot reactor plant is scheduled to start up this year. Has been for some time.Yes, classic scammer fashion, the big breakthrough is always some short time away, and has been for years.
As it turns out, since I'm a philosopher and did careful study in epistemology about how and why this sort of thing happens, I should not be surprised.
3) Stop making vain appeals to authority.This is rather amusing given your own repeated appeals to your alleged contacts at the CIA etc.
...snip pointless ramble about philosophy of science...This is all irrelevant to the simple question at hand: Has blacklight presented objectively reproducible evidence to support their extraordinary claims ? From what I've seen so far, the answer is a strong no. A few people of questionable independence (Marchese who did the NIAC work was already associated with BL AFAIK) have produced potentially interesting results, but that's a long way from confirming "hydrino theory".
Forget what everyone else thinks and look at the evidence for yourself.When I want an opinion on a highly technical matter, I look to experts in the field. If I find the opinion at odds with my experience or common sense, I might go for a second or third opinion, but working things out from first principles isn't really an option. Particularly in science, a long standing, well established consensus in the field is a strong indicator that it represents the best available model to date.
He is deliberately misleading his audience. The salient fact Barth is hiding from his audience here is that Mills did not pluck his theory from the air but rather, he was reading Maxwell when he discovered Schrodinger was wrong.Your argument here seems to boil down to claiming that Mills is right and Barth is wrong. This is not the least bit convincing, especially given Barths demonstrated expertise in this field. Nor is Barth alone in calling Mills "theory" nonsense. Mills may think he discovered Schrodinger was wrong, but that doesn't mean he wasn't effectively pulling his "theory" out of thin air.
"This is all irrelevant to the simple question at hand: Has blacklight presented objectively reproducible evidence to support their extraordinary claims ?"
No. That is not the question at hand. I have repeatedly stated I am not advocating for BLP. The question is whether it is intellectually justified for people to accuse people they don't know, and groups they know nothing about of pseudo-science, fraud and lying. You've now moved from accusing BLP of pseudo-science and fraud, to accusing me of lying--all with no evidence.
You see the problem here?
I will admit one thing I would advocate for with regards BLP and that is, someone at NASA to consider replacing JIMO with a spacecraft using a BLP driven power system.
I always thought JIMO was a great idea. If we're to learn more about our planetary system, we have to have these more capable spacecraft with KW's of power aboard rather than a few watts. JIMO was scrapped because it was just so spendy--more than a billion dollars. Imagine if the power system could be replaced cheaply? A few of these 50 Kw reactors and their subsequent sub systems are apparently not going to cost much. You can do direct plasma-dynamic conversion to electricity so very little radiator mass is needed. No need to build an enormous spacecraft. It seems to me if we could take BLP's word for a thumbnail sketch study, we'd learn what it would take to build and fly a JIMO-like mission without a nuke. Also, if indeed their reactor works the way it's claimed to, this is a fabulous opportunity to improve VASMIR by a couple orders magnitude thrust efficiency. Imagine if we had a JIMO like craft capable of both huge thrusts and super high Isp's, that drew it's power from the stuff it uses as plasma?
I don't know about you but I think this is all worth some investigation and its not as if BLP has been hiding from the scientific establishment. I'd bet anyone who has the skills to do a JIMO type mockup could get the answers they need from guys like Peter Jansson as well as from BLP.
In Barth's shabby analysis linked above, he makes the claim that the spectrum identified by Mills et al is not above the noise floor of the apparatus used to examine, but he never says what the readings were nor what the noise floor was so his claim is likewise suspect. That was not a piece of science Barth posted online.If you'd actually read the "shabby analysis" you'd know that Barth cites his sources.
Something that I know can happen with a very small probability rate is that a 1s electron can be captured by the proton in a weak interaction in the creation of a neutron. This well-known phenomenon has been theorised and observed and everything happens as expected. Its called electron capture.
Is that what is going on here?
In Barth's shabby analysis linked above, he makes the claim that the spectrum identified by Mills et al is not above the noise floor of the apparatus used to examine, but he never says what the readings were nor what the noise floor was so his claim is likewise suspect. That was not a piece of science Barth posted online.If you'd actually read the "shabby analysis" you'd know that Barth cites his sources.
I did read it and honestly, if Barth had wanted to put in the work for a real analysis, he would have published in a peer review journal, not some shmoe web blog. People need to start seeing contemporary journalism on the web for what it is, the pinnacle of abandonment of objectivity in journalism.I see you've simply ignored the fact that your original claim that Barth didn't provide data is wrong. Instead, you've just moved on to attacking the medium in which it was printed.
The reactor is running at the state university and the only explanation to date of all the energy coming from, is Mills' theory.
The reactor is running at the state university and the only explanation to date of all the energy coming from, is Mills' theory.
Where do they put waste hydrino byproduct? :)
Go back and reread the article. Barth DID NOT provide the data. He provided a reference.The reference is sufficient for any qualified individual to determine whether his interpretation representation of the data is accurate or not. So your complaint appears to merely be a dishonest diversion.
Look, this is shmoe journalism. Anyone who knows anything about Skeptic Magazine knows that it's all hack nonsense written by professional whiners and complainers, thinking they're all clever because they took an antagonistic stance against whatever is the topic du jour.More vague ad-hom, again changing your story when your error is noted. First it was blogs, now just appearing in Skeptic makes it junk.
Why is it such a problem you should actually look at the evidence? The reactor is running at the state university and the only explanation to date of all the energy coming from, is Mills' theory. Screw what Barth said back in 2001. He's not half dopey enough to say it today.If there were actual evidence, you'd have a point. The stuff at Rowan is run by Mills pals, using blacklights materials. This isn't independent validation.
Even though all of academia is essentially opposed to Mills' theory, since he is claiming to have a revolutionary type contribution to modern science, you cannot in this instance go to an authority figure for an answer.This is classic scammer/kook argument. "The establishment wants to suppress the new revolutionary theory!". It's bogus, because anyone who could actually prove the kind of things Mills claims would be collecting their Nobel pronto. You're place in history would be assured if you overturned giants like Bohr and Schrödinger. If the theory made sense, up and coming physicists would be falling over each other to prove it, not trying to suppress it.
It's not actually a loop because they don't return the hydrogen to its ground state condition. They supposedly leave it in its altered, fractional or "hydrino" energy state where they say it makes for useful material in its own right. The question whether such a thing is in the first place possible is generally dismissed because everyone presumes Schrodinger was correct in his famous "Schrodinger Equation" for which he recieved the Nobel prize in 1933. With physical evidence in hand that he may not have been correct, and that fractional energy states are possible, it is the place of the scientific community to address the issue as an open question. Thus far, it has utterly failed to do this.
Note, the issue is not truly between Bohr and Mills. When we speak of the "Bohr model" we generally assume the Schrodinger Equation as part of that model. However, Schrodinger came along a bit later than Bohr and built upon Bohr's work. Mills is saying that Bohr was essentially correct but that Schrodinger was not and he's saying this based upon Maxwell.
It's not actually a loop because they don't return the hydrogen to its ground state condition. They supposedly leave it in its altered, fractional or "hydrino" energy state where they say it makes for useful material in its own right. The question whether such a thing is in the first place possible is generally dismissed because everyone presumes Schrodinger was correct in his famous "Schrodinger Equation" for which he recieved the Nobel prize in 1933. With physical evidence in hand that he may not have been correct, and that fractional energy states are possible, it is the place of the scientific community to address the issue as an open question. Thus far, it has utterly failed to do this.
Note, the issue is not truly between Bohr and Mills. When we speak of the "Bohr model" we generally assume the Schrodinger Equation as part of that model. However, Schrodinger came along a bit later than Bohr and built upon Bohr's work. Mills is saying that Bohr was essentially correct but that Schrodinger was not and he's saying this based upon Maxwell.
Well if they do indeed leave the hydrinos in this below ground state, any engineer can tell you that you should be able to generate more power by returning it to the ground state, so why don't they do that? That should boost their power output and make them more efficient.
Well if they do indeed leave the hydrinos in this below ground state, any engineer can tell you that you should be able to generate more power by returning it to the ground state, so why don't they do that? That should boost their power output and make them more efficient.
When the electron moves in closer to the nucleus, it releases quantized energy in the form of a photon. It takes energy to move it back away from the nucleus. Doing that would give you a closed loop but it would not give you energy out of the system. In the case of most BlackLight Process to date, meaning most experiments over the last couple decades; the fractal energy state reached was 1/7 that of the ground state and when this energy level is reached, it releases a photon in the UV spectrum--hence the name of the process. It's so energetic that it produces plasma which could be handy for direct plasma-dynamic conversion to electricity. Last I read, this process is not as efficient as a standard heat engine but since it does not require a radiator, for spacecraft it may well be worth it to lose the radiator mass and go a bit less efficient. And then of course you can eject the plasma through something like a standard Ion engine or VASIMR and you have ready made the power to run the engine as well as a spacecraft's other systems.
Note, this process as explained has an energy density between standard chemical and nuclear reactions--it's a halfway house that avoids all the expense of fission, including shielding, waste, materials handling constraints and politics.
I will say the same thing I say for so called ZPM machines.
Build one for everyone to observe. Bring it out to the middle of nowhere and power something with it.
They did that ten years ago. The chemists are satisfied. It's the physicists who are all jittery.
The reactor at Rowan and its calorimetery apparatus are both open for anyone to examine and offer concerns or suggestion on how to improve the experiment. How many times do I need to say this?
They did that ten years ago. The chemists are satisfied. It's the physicists who are all jittery.
The reactor at Rowan and its calorimetery apparatus are both open for anyone to examine and offer concerns or suggestion on how to improve the experiment. How many times do I need to say this? The evidence is out for anyone who has a notion to view for themselves. This is very PUBLIC science being done at a state university.
Zach, I'm all there. I'd love the opportunity to visit Rowan and I want to see the evidence that power utilities are generating electricity based upon this method. As it happens, I'm half hour drive from Rowan and the first BLP reactors are slated to go into commercial production this year.You continue to ignore the fact that the actual Rowan experiment is neither independent nor reproducible in any scientifically meaningful sense. It relies on Blacklight supplied proprietary material and even if the results are accurate, they don't actually confirm Mills loony physics. At best, they demonstrates that the material undergoes and exothermic reaction when heated. A more parsimonious explanation is an ordinary chemical reaction that they didn't properly account for, but independent verification is impossible since the experiment relies on Blacklights material.
So what does it take to get a fair handling of the evidence with regards BLP?For evidence to be handled fairly, there would have to be some evidence to handle.
Zach, I'm all there. I'd love the opportunity to visit Rowan and I want to see the evidence that power utilities are generating electricity based upon this method. As it happens, I'm half hour drive from Rowan and the first BLP reactors are slated to go into commercial production this year.You continue to ignore the fact that the actual Rowan experiment is neither independent nor reproducible in any scientifically meaningful sense. It relies on Blacklight supplied proprietary material and even if the results are accurate, they don't actually confirm Mills loony physics. At best, they demonstrates that the material undergoes and exothermic reaction when heated. A more parsimonious explanation is an ordinary chemical reaction that they didn't properly account for, but independent verification is impossible since the experiment relies on Blacklights material.
It is telling that they focused on the calorimetry, rather than the alleged hydrino byproduct.
You protested earlier that Barths criticism wasn't credible in part because it wasn't published in the peer reviewed literature, but as far as I can tell the "independent" report you find so convincing is only published on Blacklights web site. Even Janssons own home page links to it on Blacklights site, along with a little infomercial video starring.... Mills and Jansson.
As for commercial productions starting this year, it's been starting "real soon now" for the last decade. This certainly looks like typical scammer behavior.QuoteSo what does it take to get a fair handling of the evidence with regards BLP?For evidence to be handled fairly, there would have to be some evidence to handle.
I think it is in a small sense already available. There's one running months now at Rowan University.It's a gross misrepresentation to imply that the Rowan experiment was a demonstration of a viable power production technology. It's a "reactor" only in the sense that it's a vessel which contains a reaction.
there's a utility doing assembly on a commercial plant in NM or NV, I forget which.Best I can tell, what actually happened was two small rural NM utility cooperatives allegedly purchased licenses for an unspecified amount. The terms of the licenses are only described in the vaguest terms in blacklights press release, and strangely, the two licensees didn't find it significant enough to even mention on their web sites.
Certainly what I wrote was not a gross misrepresentation. The reactor is running.A plain reading of the "independent" report (http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/BLPIndependentReport.pdf) shows that the "reactor" is a container of Blacklights "fuel" in a calorimeter. "Running" it means of applying heat, and measuring additional heat produced for a brief period following. While the Blacklight web site has various pretty animations of power plants, that's not what was tested.
But it is really silly to presume that BLP is oogie boogie considering the years this has been going on, and the quality of folks associated with it. Again, it is not rational to argue this is a hoax or a fraud, considering the people involvedBecause scientists (http://www.berkeleydaily.org/issue/2002-07-15/article/13513?headline=Lawrence-lab-admits-bad-science) and respected (http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=bernie+madoff) figures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk) have never (http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=enron) ever (http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=Allen+Stanford) engaged (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hendrik_Sch%C3%B6n) in long running, large scale fraud. Right.
Hop, make whatever argument you like in the BLP thread. I'll be happy to read it and consider it but I don't intend to respond further.::)
a) It is a reactor. They call it that because that's what it is.Rather than playing word games, how about addressing what it actually does ?
I think it is in a small sense already available [as a viable spacecraft power source]. There's one running months now at Rowan University. There's a utility doing assembly on a commercial plant in NM or NV...Now look at what the Rowan "reactor" is: It's container of 1.5 kg of "fuel" that when heated, releases ~1MJ of additional energy. Once this is done, the fuel is expended. If you want to dispute this, please reference where the report says otherwise.
... use the BlackLight Process and certain BLP energy technology for the production of thermal or electric power. Estacado may produce gross thermal power up to a maximum continuous capacity of 250 MW or convert this thermal power to corresponding electricity.Unless you have additional information, there's no indication that a plant is actually being built. For all we know, BLP bought the coop managers lunch in return for signing a license so they could issue a press release.
- Obtaining* independent tests that don't actually support the viability of their system, and don't investigate the core of their claims.
* How the Rowan team came to do this test isn't clear. Although not explicitly stated, it looks to me like it was sponsored by BLP. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does raise some questions about the strange limitations on the scope of the experiment.
Hop, I said that it in some small sense already exists. I did NOT say what you inserted into the quote in brackets. If you want to quote someone, especially with the quote bar here at NSF, then quote them. Don't stick your words in their mouth.Not my intention, and I honestly don't believe that I did. If anyone else thinks I've been way out of line here, feel free to let me know (via PM if you like). Here's the complete context, with links to the original posts:
A 50 kW BLP reactor is the size of a basketball so the power systems for this could, in that case be very small and hard to see.
3. when will that be available?
I think it is in a small sense already available. There's one running months now at Rowan University. There's a utility doing assembly on a commercial plant in NM or NV, I forget which. I don't know if there's anything one would want to launch quite yet but I'm sure CIA is fully aware of how close they are to accessI don't believe that [as a viable spacecraft power source] substantially misrepresented the position expressed above. The implication is clear that you are suggesting a basket ball sized "50kw" BLP reactor is a near term, plausible spacecraft power supply, and that the Rowan experiment somehow supports this.
AnalogMan:Rowan University are quite open and above board with the grants that they receive for sponsored research. You can find monthly and annual summary reports on their website here:
Thanks for that. Do you have a source handy ?
Date Principal investigator(s) Grant
Jul 06 Jansson $ 75,000
Dec 07 Jansson $ 35,000
Jul 08 Mugweru $ 20,807
Sep 08 Mugweru & Ramanujachary $ 50,028
Nov 08 Jansson $116,359
Nov 08 Mugweru & Ramanujachary $ 54,104
Total $351,298
So where is it? Where is the stuff ready to use?
...
This would be unique, as it would be a phyiscal process that nature hasn't achieved. Fission, Fusion, etc, nature does them.
...
So if this lower energy status were possible, would it not dominate the Universe?
Attend the demo? Am I the only one skeptical enough to doubt they would allow anyone interested to attend the demo? From where Blacklight gets the money to keep running? Probably from charging people that want to attend their demos. I bet you either pay to attend the demo or you are SELECTED from a list of people who subscribed... and they probably make a good selection, only letting in people who will make press and NOT DOUBT their nonsense.I agree to be skeptical. They do claim that they will live broadcast it on the web, though. Not sure that means much though. Either way, if I was in the area, I would certainly apply for a seat at the demo. I would probably bring James Randi with me ;)
How long ago did Virgin Galactic start selling seats on their spaceship?This isn't a good analogy at all. Suborbital flight is demonstrably possible, without any new physics. Before VG started selling seats, SS1 showed that it could be done with a vehicle similar to what VG proposed to use. VG is unquestionably building and flying real hardware that has a realistic chance of accomplishing their stated objectives.
I'll wait for the demo.Highly unlikely a stage managed demo will provide conclusive evidence. This kind of thing is SOP for crackpots and scammers.
BLP holds several patents based on graphic modelling software,[20] but has had problems with other patents. A 2000 patent based on its hydrino-related technology[21][22] was later withdrawn by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) due to contradictions with known physics laws and other concerns about the viability of the described processes. A column by Robert L. Park[23][24] and an outside query by an unknown person[25] prompted Group Director Kepplinger of the USPTO to review this new patent herself. Kepplinger said that 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", and that the patent appeared to involve cold fusion and perpetual motion.[24] She contacted another Director, Robert Spar, who also expressed doubts on the patentability of the patent application. This caused the USPTO to withdraw from issue the patent application before it was granted and re-open it for review, and to withdraw four related applications, including one for a hydrino power plant.[23] One of the four applications was so near to issuance that it appeared in the USPTO's Gazette as US 6,030,601.[23]
BlackLight filed suit in the US District Court of Columbia, saying that withdrawal of the application after the company had paid the fee was contrary to law. In 2002, the District Court concluded that the USPTO was acting inside the limits of its authority in withdrawing a patent over whose validity it had doubts, and later that year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ratified this decision.[24][25][26][27] Applications were rejected by the UK patent office for similar reasons.[24][28][29][30][31] The European Patent Office (EPO) rejected a similar BLP patent application due to lack of clarity on how the process worked. Reexamination of this European patent is pending.[24]
In 2014 BLP announced having lodged applications for multiple worldwide patents covering power generation systems based on their SF-CIHT cells.[32]
On the other hand, that so many would be enticed into giving their money to this sham shows how desperate the global markets are for energy breakthroughs.
Is it only me who thinks it might be telling that the work is published with Wiley Online? As in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiley_E._Coyote
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/er.3142/abstract;jsessionid=E17D2817E628B7C19EF31DAAFAEE57D7.f02t02
Is it only me who thinks it might be telling that the work is published with Wiley Online? As in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiley_E._Coyote
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/er.3142/abstract;jsessionid=E17D2817E628B7C19EF31DAAFAEE57D7.f02t02
It is probably only you. Nice potshot. John Wiley & Sons, Inc publishes academic papers.
I am pleasantly surprised to see the video was posted. After trashing BLP and Wiley Online, I shall - for my sins - watch this two hour video...
So does Blacklight work? :-XI honestly don't know. The video was not all that convincing to me. All we got to see was a few (not too impressive) explosions and the claim that these released a certain amount of energy (more than the charge they put into it). I have no way of verifying that rather extraordinary claim. So I still haven't made up my mind about them. They claim to be only weeks away from a self sustaining prototype. That will be interesting to see (if we get to see it).
+ They are seeing 1KJ released from 0.01 ml of water in <1 millisecond. The demo released ~1MW.This part made no sense to me whatsoever. I would measure the energy density of 100 liters of gasoline in kWh, not in kw. Yet they say 0.1 TW per liter of water and 100 times more than gasoline. Now gasoline has a energy content of about (from the top of my head, so don't nail me if I am off a bit) 9 kWh per liter. So this means that 100 times gasoline would be about 900 kWh per liter.
+ So energy density is 0.1TW per Liter of water.
+ 1 Liter of water is equal to 100 liters of gasoline. (1h25m)
It seems to me that placing a little water between the electrodes of any old spot welder would make a flash and bang. We have to trust Mills that what we’re seeing is unexpected.That is exactly what I think as well.
To be fair, I may have misheard a few things - the audio was recorded on-camera and hard to hear.I got 36 MJ per liter. Either way, 31 MJ means even less kWh per liter than my number did. So it adds up even less. I still don't get the calculation like that. You can not have X TW per liter. You can have X TWh per liter. Anything else does not make any sense.
I think they are generally referring to 1ms as the event duration, and then assuming you could repeat that 1000 times per second for max theoretical power output. So if 0.01 ml of water gives you 1MW, then a full liter could indeed give you a max of .01TW.
According to Wikipedia the energy density of gasoline is 31MJ per Liter.
It is a little suspicious to me that all the numbers are powers of ten.
I can't right now find place where he said the energy density was 0.1TW/l, so my notes may be in error on that.No, you were not wrong. I heard him say the same thing, which is why I am complaining. I cant make any sense of his units in the context they are provided in. Energy density/content is measured in kWh per liter. If we are not talking about energy density, then what is the point of talking about liters at all?
So at a minimum, he's saying 0.1TW is the max theoretical power output of a 1 liter system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cuzlyu4czYsSo does Blacklight work? :-XI honestly don't know. The video was not all that convincing to me. All we got to see was a few (not too impressive) explosions and the claim that these released a certain amount of energy (more than the charge they put into it). I have no way of verifying that rather extraordinary claim. So I still haven't made up my mind about them. They claim to be only weeks away from a self sustaining prototype. That will be interesting to see (if we get to see it).
As Rowan University is my Alma Mater, I sincerely hope their contributions are completely on the up and up... That being said, the Wile E. Coyote jokes are kind of applicable considering the rocker arm spot welders shown in the video do sport "ACME" branding. ;-) I'm with the "wait and see" crowd and while I hope this is more than an elaborate Rube Goldberg contraption, I'm not disconnecting the mains to my house just yet.
+ Quantum Mechanics is false, is not-predictive, and excludes the hydrino because it wasn’t known at the time QM was developed.
You don't actually try to address the validity or otherwise of Mills 'theory'My mind is made up on the validity and pitfalls of an appeal to authority. That's the purely by principle aspect, which was /your/ specific assertion.
I can see that your mind is already made up.
I will keep an open mind however, but I agree Mills is probably wrong and/or a crank.
Applied to Mills, I would say the philosophical's consistent with the practical: Mills has, like Rossi, kept it all but totally black boxed. This lack of transparency is, whatever the motivation, an obstacle to the very mechanic of science. An open mind won't get any more than a "closed" mind from a mute subject.
Actually from what I have seen so far, the MFMP guys have failed to clearly reproduce anomalous heat, unless their have been some recent developments that I missed.
I do not have enough knowledge of physics to say I could give Mill's hydrino theory any credence, but then, I have yet to see unequivocal proof of dark matter, either. We seem to be reaching a kind of late-18th (sic) century conservative state in science where the underlying current is that all is known and therefore anything left to know must be the few polishing touches on our glorious reasoned society.As a generalization I think this is clearly false: while terrestrial human-scale physics (mostly electro-magneticsm and Newtonian mechanics) has been sorted for a while, theoretical physics is still working on closing some embarrassingly large holes in our understanding: the reconciliation of relativity and quantum mechanics (a theory of quantum gravity) is chief among them, and more recently smoking-gun observational evidence of what we're calling dark matter and dark energy. Frankly, you could argue that even after 100 years QM itself is still not settled as there are rival interpretations on what's actually happening at the micro-scale. Remember how disappointed Hawking et al were when LHC found the Higgs Boson as predicted - adding more evidence that the Standard Model is correct? They were hoping for something crazy and new.
Jean-Paul Biberian duplicated the gamma pulse results in November.A small gamma pulse does not mean anomalous heat, which is to the best of my knowledge still elusive.
I do not have enough knowledge of physics to say I could give Mill's hydrino theory any credence, but then, I have yet to see unequivocal proof of dark matter, either. We seem to be reaching a kind of late-18th (sic) century conservative state in science where the underlying current is that all is known and therefore anything left to know must be the few polishing touches on our glorious reasoned society.As a generalization I think this is clearly false: while terrestrial human-scale physics (mostly electro-magneticsm and Newtonian mechanics) has been sorted for a while, theoretical physics is still working on closing some embarrassingly large holes in our understanding: the reconciliation of relativity and quantum mechanics (a theory of quantum gravity) is chief among them, and more recently smoking-gun observational evidence of what we're calling dark matter and dark energy. Frankly, you could argue that even after 100 years QM itself is still not settled as there are rival interpretations on what's actually happening at the micro-scale. Remember how disappointed Hawking et al were when LHC found the Higgs Boson as predicted - adding more evidence that the Standard Model is correct? They were hoping for something crazy and new.
But you are certainly correct that tenure-track scientists are aware that some research interests will be frowned upon, and stay clear.
The good news with Mills' work is it seems simple enough that a kickstarter campaign of a few tens of thousand dollars would be all it takes to replicate his results.
I suggest to wait and see. BLP claims that they are only weeks away from having a prototype that can run in self sustaining mode. If they can indeed produce that, then it should be fairly straight forward to test this and get proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Mills will get rich and famous and a Nobel price, physics will be revolutionized and everyone will live happy ever after. I would really like this happen, but... I just cant see that happening. Too many things just don't add up.BLP has been claiming practical applications Real Soon Now for the last decade or more. They seem to do a big PR push every few years, with little if any explanation of why the last iteration failed to pan out...
BLP has been claiming practical applications Real Soon Now for the last decade or more. They seem to do a big PR push every few years, with little if any explanation of why the last iteration failed to pan out...I know and I noted as much earlier in the thread :)
I do not have enough knowledge of physics to say I could give Mill's hydrino theory any credence, but then, I have yet to see unequivocal proof of dark matter, either.
So we could see this wind up quickly. Either BLP announce they've found an unexpected insurmountable problem (and exit stage left with the research money) or they change the world in the next few months.So far their MO has been to just disappear for a few years and then return to light when they needed more funding. Some skeptics have raised doubts about Rowan universities credibility in regards to this technology.
There is no such thing as a "hydrino" - it's simply fiction. You can't make up your own science - no matter how slick and appealing - and then expect things to work in real life.
And to those so certain of quantum theory, as well as regular visitor to Advanced Concepts, may I humbly point out that there's no actual Force of Gravity - therefore no such thing as Gravitons (a requirement of quantum field theory) or the possibility of anti-gravity. Gravity is an observed force, not an actual one. The actual "force" is the distortion of spacetime from energy and it's condensed form - matter. What we observe as gravity is the movement of energy (and its condensed form) through spacetime.
Your second statement is exactly what happened when the theory of electron shells was replaced by electron probability lobes as statistics, probability and quantum theory began replacing math and physics as our "understanding" of the Universe.
Yet after 100yrs of "making up science", it's become apparent again that electrons ARE shells - the science and proven function of spintronics depends upon it. Likewise most of Quantum Theory is fallacious, based upon malleable mathematics and supported only be baseless leaps in "reasoning".
And to those so certain of quantum theory, as well as regular visitor to Advanced Concepts, may I humbly point out that there's no actual Force of Gravity - therefore no such thing as Gravitons (a requirement of quantum field theory) or the possibility of anti-gravity. Gravity is an observed force, not an actual one. The actual "force" is the distortion of spacetime from energy and it's condensed form - matter. What we observe as gravity is the movement of energy (and its condensed form) through spacetime.
1)... It's not that GR is right and QM is wrong - it's that they are two different explanations for the same phenomenon from different viewpoints. We know both theories will need to give somewhat before they can be unified.Re1) When it comes to gravity, General Relativity may be right or wrong (everything points to right), but the Quantum Theory notion of gravity as an actual force, defined by a quantum force or field has proven itself repeatedly wrong. If something is unequivocally fallacious (like the quantum definition of gravity), how can you say it must be included and "unified" into General Relativity or GR must become inaccurate to merge with QM?
2) EG loop quantum gravity suggests that particles are just distortions in spacetime that happen to have knotted up (particles and anti particles are just complementary knot pairs). Gravitation is the bulk outcome of many planck-scale distortions.
Cheers, Martin
3) I'm not sure what you mean by "replacing math and physics". Quantum mechanics is certainly still governed by mathematics, and generally requires more of it than classical physics.
4) It is also the foundation for all modern physics. ... Any theory that tries to describe the world has to reproduce the results of the experiments that QM accounts for.
5) In particular, Bell's inequality (entanglement) which has been experimentally confirmed many times means that it is impossible to describe the universe with a classical theory. You HAVE to either introduce quantum mechanics or alternatively something much more complicated in order to describe the world. ... Attempting to replace quantum mechanics with a classical theory is doomed to fail from the start.
Science is about coming up with models capable of making predictions, and falsifying models whose predictions end up being false.
it might be to protect humanity from itself.Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with fertilizer. Nuts don't need anti-gravity weapons to kill people.
when if just one terrorist, psychopath, intoxicated or otherwise disturbed or careless person gets access they can literally destroy a building, a city. a state, a nation, a continent and even all life on earth? if you had made such a discovery how would you safeguard it?
Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with fertilizer. Nuts don't need anti-gravity weapons to kill people.
Science is about coming up with models capable of making predictions, and falsifying models whose predictions end up being false.
There's plenty of science which is not predictive in any way.
What do you have in mind?
Virtually every fact or hypothesis has implications. If A is true, then B cannot be true, or C will behave in a certain manner, and so on. These implications predict that if you test these propositions, you test the truthfulness of A.
(snip).. and there's whole fields of science where "test" has no sensible definition.
Heck, Mathematics? (snip)
(snip).. and there's whole fields of science where "test" has no sensible definition.
Heck, Mathematics? (snip)
How about string theory? So tautological that it can mathematically describe everything... and so tells us nothing specific about anything.
Nevertheless, fractional ground states would likely've been found by mainstream physics many decades ago, if they existed; which is unlikely, IMHO. So what *accepted* physical process could explain the flash bang? Can the state changes from water to steam to plasma (or "plasma") really be so energetic?
TW
Nevertheless, fractional ground states would likely've been found by mainstream physics many decades ago, if they existed; which is unlikely, IMHO. ...That's a fairly bold assumption. Why would "mainstream physicists" look for something they're sure couldn't exist? What makes you think fractional ground states weren't already and/or accidently found, but dismissed as error or categorized as another "quantum" phenomenon? Simply look to Stormbringer 1) below stating these initial dismissals, desire for quantum categorization and yet possibility of ignorance.
1) the energy states of an electron are determined by quanticisation. It is a quantum property. No electron has ever been observed in an energy state lower than the accepted ground state. ...Re2) Condensates, superfluidity, entanglement, superconductance, Josephson junction, - Why must these use "quantum" descriptions?
it is possible that some procedure could force an electron into a extremely rare situation where it exists below its normal orbital so long as the new orbital is quanticized. and it is entirely possible for such a state to be completely unobserved by science to date because no one is looking for it and there are countless electrons the vast majority of which would be where we would expect them to be and doing what we expect them to do.
...
2) in physics there are several special states of matter beyond the four we are familiar with; in addition to solids, liquids, gases and plasma. Bose Einstein condensates and several other weird states also exist in which matter takes on strange properties that you would never expect if all you knew was the ordinary states of matter. There are also strange configurations of nuclear and electronic shells such as nucleonic isomeres.
...
3) i think some set of circumstances could drop an electron below the accepted lowest ground state. but cannot see a way for that to happen and actually produce a gain in energy. It would take energy to produce the circumstances and forces that would make the electron behave abnormally. at best you would have a battery to store energy but you would have to provide the energy to charge that battery. and there is no telling what the relaxation time would be. it would probably be worse than the nucleonic isomer relaxation problem.
Nevertheless, fractional ground states would likely've been found by mainstream physics many decades ago, if they existed; which is unlikely, IMHO. ...That's a fairly bold assumption. Why would "mainstream physicists" look for something they're sure couldn't exist? What makes you think fractional ground states weren't already and/or accidently found, but dismissed as error or categorized as another "quantum" phenomenon? Simply look to Stormbringer 1) below stating these initial dismissals, desire for quantum categorization and yet possibility of ignorance.
Oh come on, my statement's one of the least bold made anywhere on this thread so far. ...I suppose perspective determines what a "bold statement" is. Is it bold to say almost all subatomic physics post Maxwell, Einstein and Bohr is an ill-conceived and misguided dead end? Inversely, is it bold to say that because 95% of "experts", decades of work and extensive computer simulations come to a conclusion, it must be accurate?
Oh come on, my statement's one of the least bold made anywhere on this thread so far.I'm making this a separate point as it's tangential, but quite important.
As quantum theory is itself fallacious, what then of the Standard ModelNow that is a bold statement. However, it ignores the obvious fact that quantum physics and the standard model work extremely well. They may well be wrong, but they are less wrong (http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm) than everything that came before.
Now that is a bold statement ...See post made 18minutes earlier for explanation. It's at the bottom of the previous page.
You can still think of them as a very valuable tool, but that does not correctly explain what is happening. Personally I prefer to think of a string moving on 11 dimensions on a straight path than a particle that pops in and out of existence in random positions and times.As quantum theory is itself fallacious, what then of the Standard ModelNow that is a bold statement. However, it ignores the obvious fact that quantum physics and the standard model work extremely well. They may well be wrong, but they are less wrong (http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm) than everything that came before.
As quantum theory is itself fallacious, what then of the Standard Model? What then of using incredible engineering to produce shards that fit into this foundationless model?
What of all the "experts" that without any evidence, only bogus theories and doctored shards, can claim to have discovered all the forces of the Universe and structure of subatomic particles?
I don't think it is so much they censor confirming data as there is none. I specifically asked you to point me to the experiments and you did not.Regarding your example of quantum mechanics, there is a growing body of evidence that Hydrogen exists in lower or fractional states according to multiple new experiments. QM doesn't admit such fractional states. Accordingly, if you ask any physicist they will tell you such states cannot exist because they are not admitted in QM and we know QM is 'true'. They say millions of experiments have been conducted consistent with QM for over a century. It's completely proven. So what do the proponents need to do to show that hydrogen does exist in lower 'fractional' states? How much data does it take? Does it matter who does the confirming experiment? In practice, what would you consider the necessary 'extraordinary' evidence? Thanks.I cannot answer your question because I don't know what you mean by a fractional state of hydrogen. A quick google search turned up nothing. If you point me to these experiments, I could give a better answer, but for now it could be anything from experiments showing a new state that is consistent with the rest of quantum, but had either been overlooked in the theory due to complicated preconditions necessary for it to exist, or simply not formed experimentally until now. On the other hand it could be talking about electron orbitals that don't fit Schrodinger's equation, and they will need a lot of careful data showing there is not some contaminant in their experiment, and explaining why no one has ever noticed the extra line in the emission spectrum of hydrogen.
Fractional states are those with principle quantum numbers as fractions such as 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, and so on where the electron is closer and more tightly bound. These states are stable and non radiative and below the accepted ground state and thus release huge amounts of energy as they form. The scientist is Randell Mills at Brilliant Light Power. Mills calls these 'hydrino' or small hydrogen states. A word of caution, the Wikipedia editors consider it junk science and they actively censor any confirming data concentrating mainly on snarky public comments from well known scientists opposed to the idea. Mills holds the worlds record for pissing off the most Nobel laureates. But at least they've heard of him.
"incompatible with key equations of Quantum Mechanics" is not a snarky comment, it is a problem that would have to be addressed. So far you have pointed me to one collection of claims that contradict a whole lot of known physics, and 0 supporting evidence. These claims would need either a huge amount of data or a few very significant experiments (scientific definition of significance). He has had tons of funding and plenty of time, and if any of his claims worked, he should have created irrefutable demonstrations by now.
I don't think it is so much they censor confirming data as there is none. I specifically asked you to point me to the experiments and you did not.
"incompatible with key equations of Quantum Mechanics" is not a snarky comment, it is a problem that would have to be addressed. So far you have pointed me to one collection of claims that contradict a whole lot of known physics, and 0 supporting evidence. These claims would need either a huge amount of data or a few very significant experiments (scientific definition of significance). He has had tons of funding and plenty of time, and if any of his claims worked, he should have created irrefutable demonstrations by now.
Based on a cursory overview of information available online, Mills seems to be a scam artist who has been fleecing investors with promises of ultra-low-cost energy production for well over a decade without producing any functional results.
On the plus side, a libertarian news aggregate page, which calls him "A Living Legend, Greater Than Einstein and Tesla Combined," has a link to his most recent paper (from May). Warning, it's 111 pages long.
http://www.brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/Hydrino-Blast-Power-Paper-060117b.pdf
There seems to already be a thread for Black/Brightlight Power: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16535.160
With just the emdrive itself having serious credibility problems, it's surely not a good idea to associate it with other fringe-y concepts.
Meberbs, thanks for the response. I just figured you could find the papers on your own given the subject but here is the latest experimental paper you can read;You are making the claims, I am not going to do extensive research to support your claims, and searches on the subject mostly bring up many references and peer reviewed papers providing a long list of problems with Mill's experiments and theory. Meanwhile, everything you provided is from Mills, and based on the fact that direct replications of his experiments by NASA contradicted his findings, there is strong reason to doubt results that he publishes.
There is supporting evidence and supporting scientists who have independently verified the reaction ...Then why did you not provide any?
and it's power but Wikipedia does censor that information and I know because I've heard from people who have posted to the site with that information and seen it disappear every time. I'm confident that in time the level of evidence will reach a point that it is widely accepted.Your confidence seems to be based on ignoring the preponderance of evidence. Wikipedia does not censor information, but I am guessing that the policy of "no original research" is one of the problems that people may have run into if what you say is true. (And if it is, you can easily prove it by looking providing a link to the relevant revisions in the article history.)
But yes, it's a long hard slog to prove a reaction exists that could have been discovered over a century ago and was missed. There is understandingly a lot of resistance to that mistake.This is basically you agreeing with the original point that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Add yes, QM will have to be modified to incorporate these states but the key equations of QM have been modified before as new discoveries unfolded, like anti-matter and spin. These equations are models of nature, not laws of nature. It's not so hard to imagine they need to be modified again.Schrodinger's equation hasn't changed to my knowledge. From what I have seen of Mill's theory, he takes an equation derived from the Schrodinger equation, plugs in numbers explicitly inconsistent with the derivation of the equation, and claims magic happens. This isn't modifying QM, this is just him making up a self-inconsistent theory.
It's also under appreciated by Mills' critics as to how hard it is to engineer such a reaction into a fully working energy producing device especially with a small team and no government funding. With all it's potential and funding, fusion should have been done a half century ago. What about MEGA devices? I ask you, why should engineering such a hydrino reaction be so trivially easy that not completing it so far deserves your derision? But a major breakthrough was achieved about four years ago that allows the reaction kinetics to be very large and yield commercial amounts of power. It took over twenty years to find that path. For the first decades Mills' power levels were very low like the MEGA or EMDrive devices are now. I'm sure the 'doers' in this group appreciate just how difficult it is to do experiments and show new effects in a skeptical if not hostile environment.
Any updates on Blacklight? If memory serves they should have some type of demo system operational??
11 million in funding...~3 years later... new name, new website, new novel-length non peer-reviewed "papers"... Bingo!
http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/
Does that mean they will disappear again for a few years?
11 million in funding...~3 years later... new name, new website, new novel-length non peer-reviewed "papers"... Bingo!
http://www.blacklightpower.com/whats-new/
Does that mean they will disappear again for a few years?
(A BLP fan was assuring us that BLP had signed contracts with utilities back in 2009 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16535.msg395582#msg395582), and BLP had already been pushing variations on the theme with "real soon now" promises 10+ years before that.)
Meberbs, thanks for the response. I just figured you could find the papers on your own given the subject but here is the latest experimental paper you can read;You are making the claims, I am not going to do extensive research to support your claims, and searches on the subject mostly bring up many references and peer reviewed papers providing a long list of problems with Mill's experiments and theory. Meanwhile, everything you provided is from Mills, and based on the fact that direct replications of his experiments by NASA contradicted his findings, there is strong reason to doubt results that he publishes.There is supporting evidence and supporting scientists who have independently verified the reaction ...Then why did you not provide any?and it's power but Wikipedia does censor that information and I know because I've heard from people who have posted to the site with that information and seen it disappear every time. I'm confident that in time the level of evidence will reach a point that it is widely accepted.Your confidence seems to be based on ignoring the preponderance of evidence. Wikipedia does not censor information, but I am guessing that the policy of "no original research" is one of the problems that people may have run into if what you say is true. (And if it is, you can easily prove it by looking providing a link to the relevant revisions in the article history.)But yes, it's a long hard slog to prove a reaction exists that could have been discovered over a century ago and was missed. There is understandingly a lot of resistance to that mistake.This is basically you agreeing with the original point that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
We should probably end the conversation here, but I'll respond to the rest of your post for completeness.Add yes, QM will have to be modified to incorporate these states but the key equations of QM have been modified before as new discoveries unfolded, like anti-matter and spin. These equations are models of nature, not laws of nature. It's not so hard to imagine they need to be modified again.Schrodinger's equation hasn't changed to my knowledge. From what I have seen of Mill's theory, he takes an equation derived from the Schrodinger equation, plugs in numbers explicitly inconsistent with the derivation of the equation, and claims magic happens. This isn't modifying QM, this is just him making up a self-inconsistent theory.It's also under appreciated by Mills' critics as to how hard it is to engineer such a reaction into a fully working energy producing device especially with a small team and no government funding. With all it's potential and funding, fusion should have been done a half century ago. What about MEGA devices? I ask you, why should engineering such a hydrino reaction be so trivially easy that not completing it so far deserves your derision? But a major breakthrough was achieved about four years ago that allows the reaction kinetics to be very large and yield commercial amounts of power. It took over twenty years to find that path. For the first decades Mills' power levels were very low like the MEGA or EMDrive devices are now. I'm sure the 'doers' in this group appreciate just how difficult it is to do experiments and show new effects in a skeptical if not hostile environment.
Somehow I knew you would make exactly this point, and it is completely wrong. First you need to be aware of the difference between physics and engineering. The physics of fusion was demonstrated in the 50s, and I don't think there have been any real significant updates in decades. The engineering of controlled fusion is a harder problem, but we know the relevant physics and it has been clearly demonstrated. The only question is if we can find creative enough containment methods to make it economical, and solving some things that are difficult to model theoretically, like material degradation under high energy neutron bombardment.
On the other hand, none of the physics behind the hydrino has been demonstrated, your comment about government funding is both wrong (NASA did tests) and irrelevant (quick research indicates tens of millions of dollars of investment.) Meanwhile, if there were other states of the hydrogen atom, a simple high school level experiment of a glass tube full of hydrogen, with a pair of high voltage electrodes and a spectrometer would be able to demonstrate it. Also, electrons tend to the lowest available energy state, so lower energy states should literally be impossible to miss.
If you really want to discuss this further, we should take it to the relevant thread that as58 found. With your apparent agreement with the claim that started this tangent, there is no longer any meaningful relevance to this topic. (this site has nothing against resurrecting even very old threads, but it does have rules against off-topic posts)
"...regarding the fact that there are several scientists who have confirmed Mills work"
"if I point you to talks by them"
"...regarding the fact that there are several scientists who have confirmed Mills work"
"if I point you to talks by them"
Who?
Please do so. Or better yet, link to a paper of their work, their experimental setups, and their results.
"...regarding the fact that there are several scientists who have confirmed Mills work"
"if I point you to talks by them"
Who?
Please do so. Or better yet, link to a paper of their work, their experimental setups, and their results.
If you want to hear them your going to have to watch one of the recent demonstrations where they appeared and presented their arguments here;
https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLw1e-SwMe6eJf4Rr32w2UybIWOJ2cODEQ&v=AUKsOxCn8Ac
"...regarding the fact that there are several scientists who have confirmed Mills work"
"if I point you to talks by them"
Who?
Please do so. Or better yet, link to a paper of their work, their experimental setups, and their results.
If you want to hear them your going to have to watch one of the recent demonstrations where they appeared and presented their arguments here;
https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLw1e-SwMe6eJf4Rr32w2UybIWOJ2cODEQ&v=AUKsOxCn8Ac
I don't want to hear them, I want to see their research and how it confirms Mill's work.
"...regarding the fact that there are several scientists who have confirmed Mills work"
"if I point you to talks by them"
Who?
Please do so. Or better yet, link to a paper of their work, their experimental setups, and their results.
If you want to hear them your going to have to watch one of the recent demonstrations where they appeared and presented their arguments here;
https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLw1e-SwMe6eJf4Rr32w2UybIWOJ2cODEQ&v=AUKsOxCn8Ac
I don't want to hear them, I want to see their research and how it confirms Mill's work.
Respectfully, I've pointed you to the information. What you do with it involves your own level of commitment, not mine.
OK, so, on BLP's website there are links to what it calls "validation reports" which appear to be where BLP had some reasonably well qualified people come in and take measurements during demonstrations done for them last year. Their observations vary widely, with pretty dramatic differences in power outputs (see picture). One witnessed the experimental setup melt, another describes the running setup as "loud explosions."
Not very indicative of a stable power-generation setup, it seems.
There are PDFs of their observation reports (along with other reports, which are undated and range from (at least) 2011 to 2016), along with the slideshows from the youtube videos. However, these reports do have some information redacted. The ones I read basically conclude, "interesting, seems to match what was predicted, but needs more research to find out why."
OK, so, on BLP's website there are links to what it calls "validation reports" which appear to be where BLP had some reasonably well qualified people come in and take measurements during demonstrations done for them last year. Their observations vary widely, with pretty dramatic differences in power outputs (see picture). One witnessed the experimental setup melt, another describes the running setup as "loud explosions."
Not very indicative of a stable power-generation setup, it seems.
There are PDFs of their observation reports (along with other reports, which are undated and range from (at least) 2011 to 2016), along with the slideshows from the youtube videos. However, these reports do have some information redacted. The ones I read basically conclude, "interesting, seems to match what was predicted, but needs more research to find out why."
http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/
OK, so, on BLP's website there are links to what it calls "validation reports" which appear to be where BLP had some reasonably well qualified people come in and take measurements during demonstrations done for them last year. Their observations vary widely, with pretty dramatic differences in power outputs (see picture). One witnessed the experimental setup melt, another describes the running setup as "loud explosions."
Not very indicative of a stable power-generation setup, it seems.
There are PDFs of their observation reports (along with other reports, which are undated and range from (at least) 2011 to 2016), along with the slideshows from the youtube videos. However, these reports do have some information redacted. The ones I read basically conclude, "interesting, seems to match what was predicted, but needs more research to find out why."
There are two main problems I see here:
1. These reports are filtered through the company. To really be independent, they should be published by a third party, where the reporter is free to report honestly everything that person observed. If they are having some people make observations and report them to the company, then the company puts them on its web site, it brings up various kinds of issues. Did the company agree in advance to publish the results no matter what they were? Did they publish all reports from all observers, or did they pick and choose what to publish based on the reports? What were the financial arrangements between the observers and the company?
2. The observers have no training in spotting deception. Someone might be a good experimental physicist, for example, but not have the experience or training to spot deliberate fraud. There are people who specialize in investigating claims that are counter to established scientific principles, both deliberate fraud and innocent mistakes. For example, there is the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, publisher of Skeptical Inquirer magazine. I'm sure they would be happen to send an investigator to observe the claims of hydrinos and give and independent report.
http://www.csicop.org/si
Regarding point 1, that's true but realize 'independent' vs. Collaboration doesn't mean true vs. False. I believe the Validators are competent researchers who understood what and why they are doing. Point 2 is speculation on your part and if you are going to bring up the potential of fraud, after Mills has spent his entire career on his discovery, there is no point in discussing this with you. He's not a fraud.
Mills could convince everyone by giving hydrinos to other scientists. No one other than Mills and his associates have observed such things, but if Mills' devices work as he claims, they must be producing hydrinos as waste. However, he seems to rely on energy output demonstrations that are just about as convincing as Rossi's ECat.
"...regarding the fact that there are several scientists who have confirmed Mills work"
"if I point you to talks by them"
Who?
Please do so. Or better yet, link to a paper of their work, their experimental setups, and their results.
If you want to hear them your going to have to watch one of the recent demonstrations where they appeared and presented their arguments here;
https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLw1e-SwMe6eJf4Rr32w2UybIWOJ2cODEQ&v=AUKsOxCn8Ac
I don't want to hear them, I want to see their research and how it confirms Mill's work.
Respectfully, I've pointed you to the information. What you do with it involves your own level of commitment, not mine.
"...regarding the fact that there are several scientists who have confirmed Mills work"
"if I point you to talks by them"
Who?
Please do so. Or better yet, link to a paper of their work, their experimental setups, and their results.
If you want to hear them your going to have to watch one of the recent demonstrations where they appeared and presented their arguments here;
https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLw1e-SwMe6eJf4Rr32w2UybIWOJ2cODEQ&v=AUKsOxCn8Ac
I don't want to hear them, I want to see their research and how it confirms Mill's work.
Respectfully, I've pointed you to the information. What you do with it involves your own level of commitment, not mine.
No, you have NOT.
Read the quotes.
"Who?
Please do so. Or better yet, link to a paper of their work, their experimental setups, and their results."
He asked names but more specifically, he asked for links to the PAPERS OF THEIR WORK, THEIR EXPERIMENTAL SETUPS AND RESULTS.
You provided Youtube links and claims this is information?
The Earth is flat. I will post videos from Youtube providing all the necessary information. What you do with that information is up to you. But Earth is undeniably flat, as can be proved by Youtubers.
OK, so, on BLP's website there are links to what it calls "validation reports" which appear to be where BLP had some reasonably well qualified people come in and take measurements during demonstrations done for them last year. Their observations vary widely, with pretty dramatic differences in power outputs (see picture). One witnessed the experimental setup melt, another describes the running setup as "loud explosions."
Not very indicative of a stable power-generation setup, it seems.
There are PDFs of their observation reports (along with other reports, which are undated and range from (at least) 2011 to 2016), along with the slideshows from the youtube videos. However, these reports do have some information redacted. The ones I read basically conclude, "interesting, seems to match what was predicted, but needs more research to find out why."
http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/
The Validators are doing confirming experiments regarding the existence of the hydrino reaction, not comparative engineering designs of stable reactors. Of course, exact conditions matter and vary in different experiments done by different people. But they all agreed a new reaction is there that has potential as a new power source which was the entire point.
OK, so, on BLP's website there are links to what it calls "validation reports" which appear to be where BLP had some reasonably well qualified people come in and take measurements during demonstrations done for them last year. Their observations vary widely, with pretty dramatic differences in power outputs (see picture). One witnessed the experimental setup melt, another describes the running setup as "loud explosions."
Not very indicative of a stable power-generation setup, it seems.
There are PDFs of their observation reports (along with other reports, which are undated and range from (at least) 2011 to 2016), along with the slideshows from the youtube videos. However, these reports do have some information redacted. The ones I read basically conclude, "interesting, seems to match what was predicted, but needs more research to find out why."
http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/
The Validators are doing confirming experiments regarding the existence of the hydrino reaction, not comparative engineering designs of stable reactors. Of course, exact conditions matter and vary in different experiments done by different people. But they all agreed a new reaction is there that has potential as a new power source which was the entire point.
No, they did not do any experiments. The reports which I found listed on the BLP website are observations of a demonstration unit which was run by BLP.
They did not say there was a new reaction, nor did they confirm the existence of the hydrino.
If anyone is doing experiments that have confirmed the hydrino, please tell who has done / is doing so, and if possible, link to their papers.
Some Validators did do experiments and said so. Read the reports. Also, watch the presentation Peter M. Jansson, one of the Validators, gave at a recent briefing. It's available on the Brilliant Light YouTube Channel.Jansson is a long time BLP collaborator who's past work has been funded by BLP (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16535.msg430756#msg430756).
BTW, if none of this is good enough for you, relax, don't sweat it, just wait till more information is released.That has been the BLP story for the last 25 years, and all the while, they've been pulling in millions from investors using flashy but scientifically worthless demos and "validations". Back in 2009 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16535.msg460865#msg460865) they claimed to be on the verge of utility scale production. Yet somehow, that didn't happen, and despite millions in funding they haven't been able to isolate a few micrograms of "hydrinos" in the intervening 8 years.
if you are going to bring up the potential of fraud, after Mills has spent his entire career on his discovery, there is no point in discussing this with you. He's not a fraud.
Some Validators did do experiments and said so. Read the reports. Also, watch the presentation Peter M. Jansson, one of the Validators, gave at a recent briefing. It's available on the Brilliant Light YouTube Channel.Jansson is a long time BLP collaborator who's past work has been funded by BLP (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16535.msg430756#msg430756).QuoteBTW, if none of this is good enough for you, relax, don't sweat it, just wait till more information is released.That has been the BLP story for the last 25 years, and all the while, they've been pulling in millions from investors using flashy but scientifically worthless demos and "validations". Back in 2009 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16535.msg460865#msg460865) they claimed to be on the verge of utility scale production. Yet somehow, that didn't happen, and despite millions in funding they haven't been able to isolate a few micrograms of "hydrinos" in the intervening 8 years.
Strangely, all those old press releases have gone down the memory hole, and their robots.txt is apparently configured to disallow archive.org from archiving. ::)
Why anyone would presume good faith at this point is a mystery to me.
if you are going to bring up the potential of fraud, after Mills has spent his entire career on his discovery, there is no point in discussing this with you. He's not a fraud.
OK, so you're just going to assert something and refuse to discuss even the possibility of it not being true. Nobody but you is going to think that's a reasonable position to take.
If you want reasonable arguments you are going to have to use some yourself. You are asserting many things, but have no supporting evidence. The thousands of experiments are in support of existing physics which disallows the hydrino. Unless and until significant results demonstrate the hydrino your assertions are unreasonable. Even for your basic statements of independent experiments existing you have now revealed you have no details about them.if you are going to bring up the potential of fraud, after Mills has spent his entire career on his discovery, there is no point in discussing this with you. He's not a fraud.
OK, so you're just going to assert something and refuse to discuss even the possibility of it not being true. Nobody but you is going to think that's a reasonable position to take.
No, I'm fine with people being skeptical just use reasonable arguments. But the likelihood that thousands of experiments are all wrong seems remote to me. Also, a lot of smart people are putting real money into it.
if you are going to bring up the potential of fraud, after Mills has spent his entire career on his discovery, there is no point in discussing this with you. He's not a fraud.
OK, so you're just going to assert something and refuse to discuss even the possibility of it not being true. Nobody but you is going to think that's a reasonable position to take.
No, I'm fine with people being skeptical just use reasonable arguments. But the likelihood that thousands of experiments are all wrong seems remote to me. Also, a lot of smart people are putting real money into it.
if you are going to bring up the potential of fraud, after Mills has spent his entire career on his discovery, there is no point in discussing this with you. He's not a fraud.
OK, so you're just going to assert something and refuse to discuss even the possibility of it not being true. Nobody but you is going to think that's a reasonable position to take.
No, I'm fine with people being skeptical just use reasonable arguments. But the likelihood that thousands of experiments are all wrong seems remote to me. Also, a lot of smart people are putting real money into it.
You literally just said that if I was going to bring up the possibility of fraud, you would refuse to discuss it, then simply asserted there was no fraud. That is not being open to reasonable arguments. That is saying you are going to refuse to listen to all arguments, reasonable or not.
If you want reasonable arguments you are going to have to use some yourself. You are asserting many things, but have no supporting evidence. The thousands of experiments are in support of existing physics which disallows the hydrino. Unless and until significant results demonstrate the hydrino your assertions are unreasonable. Even for your basic statements of independent experiments existing you have now revealed you have no details about them.if you are going to bring up the potential of fraud, after Mills has spent his entire career on his discovery, there is no point in discussing this with you. He's not a fraud.
OK, so you're just going to assert something and refuse to discuss even the possibility of it not being true. Nobody but you is going to think that's a reasonable position to take.
No, I'm fine with people being skeptical just use reasonable arguments. But the likelihood that thousands of experiments are all wrong seems remote to me. Also, a lot of smart people are putting real money into it.
Conclusion
In this paper we have considered the theoretical foundations of the hydrino hypothesis, both within the theoretical framework of CQM, in which hydrinos were originally suggested, and within standard quantum mechanics. We found that CQM is inconsistent and has several serious deficiencies. Amongst these are the failure to reproduce the energy levels of the excited states of the hydrogen atom, and the absence of Lorentz invariance. Most importantly, we found that CQM does not predict the existence of hydrino states! Also, standard quantum mechanics cannot encompass hydrino states, with the properties currently attributed to them. Hence there remains no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis. This strongly suggests that the experimental evidence put forward in favour of the existence of hydrinos should be reconsidered for interpretation in terms of conventional physics. This reconsideration of the experimental data is beyond the scope of the current paper. Also, to understand properly the experimental results presented by Mills et al., it would be helpful if these were independently reproduced by some other experimental groups.
Here's the conclusion from a paper by the ESA Advanced Concepts Team. They analyzed the hydrino model and found problems. Note that they did not address the experimental data, but suggest it be reinterpreted under conventional physics.QuoteConclusion
In this paper we have considered the theoretical foundations of the hydrino hypothesis, both within the theoretical framework of CQM, in which hydrinos were originally suggested, and within standard quantum mechanics. We found that CQM is inconsistent and has several serious deficiencies. Amongst these are the failure to reproduce the energy levels of the excited states of the hydrogen atom, and the absence of Lorentz invariance. Most importantly, we found that CQM does not predict the existence of hydrino states! Also, standard quantum mechanics cannot encompass hydrino states, with the properties currently attributed to them. Hence there remains no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis. This strongly suggests that the experimental evidence put forward in favour of the existence of hydrinos should be reconsidered for interpretation in terms of conventional physics. This reconsideration of the experimental data is beyond the scope of the current paper. Also, to understand properly the experimental results presented by Mills et al., it would be helpful if these were independently reproduced by some other experimental groups.
http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/index.html
http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/PHY/ACT-RPR-PHY-Rathke-hydrino.pdf
165 pages to reply to 9. This seems like a similar technique to a Gish gallop. Anyway, I lost count of errors and nonsensical statements by page 2.
For example, he assumes that there are only 2 spatial dimensions, and allows non-normalizable wavefunctions.
He has in the past but the hydrino is in the form of a minute amount of hydrino hydrated compound of gas fettered in some matrix. It's not like he has tanks of pure di-hydrino gas.
He has in the past but the hydrino is in the form of a minute amount of hydrino hydrated compound of gas fettered in some matrix. It's not like he has tanks of pure di-hydrino gas.
Where does he say that? All I've seen that he claims that dark matter consists of hydrinos. So maybe in his current theory hydrinos are actually undetectable. That would be convenient.
Edit: Also, in Mills' theory hydrino reactions don't produce hugely much more energy per hydrogen atom compared to normal reactions, so if he really had a working kW-class reactor, it would absolutely have to produce macroscopic amounts of hydrinos.
Even if you buy into the theory that hydrinos are dark matter so they don't react strongly with normal matter and are hard to detect, that would just mean that hydrinos generated by the reactor would fall through the Earth and orbit the center of the Earth. And that would mean a detectable drop in the mass of the reactor.
He has in the past but the hydrino is in the form of a minute amount of hydrino hydrated compound of gas fettered in some matrix. It's not like he has tanks of pure di-hydrino gas.
Where does he say that? All I've seen that he claims that dark matter consists of hydrinos. So maybe in his current theory hydrinos are actually undetectable. That would be convenient.
Edit: Also, in Mills' theory hydrino reactions don't produce hugely much more energy per hydrogen atom compared to normal reactions, so if he really had a working kW-class reactor, it would absolutely have to produce macroscopic amounts of hydrinos.
Even if you buy into the theory that hydrinos are dark matter so they don't react strongly with normal matter and are hard to detect, that would just mean that hydrinos generated by the reactor would fall through the Earth and orbit the center of the Earth. And that would mean a detectable drop in the mass of the reactor.
He has in the past but the hydrino is in the form of a minute amount of hydrino hydrated compound of gas fettered in some matrix. It's not like he has tanks of pure di-hydrino gas.
Where does he say that? All I've seen that he claims that dark matter consists of hydrinos. So maybe in his current theory hydrinos are actually undetectable. That would be convenient.
Edit: Also, in Mills' theory hydrino reactions don't produce hugely much more energy per hydrogen atom compared to normal reactions, so if he really had a working kW-class reactor, it would absolutely have to produce macroscopic amounts of hydrinos.
He has in the past but the hydrino is in the form of a minute amount of hydrino hydrated compound of gas fettered in some matrix. It's not like he has tanks of pure di-hydrino gas.
Where does he say that? All I've seen that he claims that dark matter consists of hydrinos. So maybe in his current theory hydrinos are actually undetectable. That would be convenient.
Edit: Also, in Mills' theory hydrino reactions don't produce hugely much more energy per hydrogen atom compared to normal reactions, so if he really had a working kW-class reactor, it would absolutely have to produce macroscopic amounts of hydrinos.
Even if you buy into the theory that hydrinos are dark matter so they don't react strongly with normal matter and are hard to detect, that would just mean that hydrinos generated by the reactor would fall through the Earth and orbit the center of the Earth. And that would mean a detectable drop in the mass of the reactor.
Mills concept of dark matter is hydrogen in stable lower states, not exotic matter that doesn't gravitationally interact with normal matter. Even so, why would hydrino's fall through the earth? Mills says they float off into space as diHydrino gas as hydrogen gas does.
He has in the past but the hydrino is in the form of a minute amount of hydrino hydrated compound of gas fettered in some matrix. It's not like he has tanks of pure di-hydrino gas.
Where does he say that? All I've seen that he claims that dark matter consists of hydrinos. So maybe in his current theory hydrinos are actually undetectable. That would be convenient.
Edit: Also, in Mills' theory hydrino reactions don't produce hugely much more energy per hydrogen atom compared to normal reactions, so if he really had a working kW-class reactor, it would absolutely have to produce macroscopic amounts of hydrinos.
Even if you buy into the theory that hydrinos are dark matter so they don't react strongly with normal matter and are hard to detect, that would just mean that hydrinos generated by the reactor would fall through the Earth and orbit the center of the Earth. And that would mean a detectable drop in the mass of the reactor.
Mills concept of dark matter is hydrogen in stable lower states, not exotic matter that doesn't gravitationally interact with normal matter. Even so, why would hydrino's fall through the earth? Mills says they float off into space as diHydrino gas as hydrogen gas does.
You've got the idea of Dark Matter backwards: it DOES gravitationally interact with the rest of the universe - its gravitational effects are how we know it's out there - but otherwise it emits no EM radiation and it interacts weakly with the other forces.
What Mills calls dark matter is probably not what you think of as dark matter, it's not exotic matter. He explained that in some of his recent video talks.
Mills hydrino reactions produce way more than normal hydrogen reactions per atom, some 204ev per atom in the transition from H to H(1/4). What conventional reaction produces 204 electron volts per atom with hydrogen?
He has in the past but the hydrino is in the form of a minute amount of hydrino hydrated compound of gas fettered in some matrix. It's not like he has tanks of pure di-hydrino gas.
Where does he say that? All I've seen that he claims that dark matter consists of hydrinos. So maybe in his current theory hydrinos are actually undetectable. That would be convenient.
Edit: Also, in Mills' theory hydrino reactions don't produce hugely much more energy per hydrogen atom compared to normal reactions, so if he really had a working kW-class reactor, it would absolutely have to produce macroscopic amounts of hydrinos.
Even if you buy into the theory that hydrinos are dark matter so they don't react strongly with normal matter and are hard to detect, that would just mean that hydrinos generated by the reactor would fall through the Earth and orbit the center of the Earth. And that would mean a detectable drop in the mass of the reactor.
Mills concept of dark matter is hydrogen in stable lower states, not exotic matter that doesn't gravitationally interact with normal matter. Even so, why would hydrino's fall through the earth? Mills says they float off into space as diHydrino gas as hydrogen gas does.
What Mills calls dark matter is probably not what you think of as dark matter, it's not exotic matter. He explained that in some of his recent video talks.QuoteMills hydrino reactions produce way more than normal hydrogen reactions per atom, some 204ev per atom in the transition from H to H(1/4). What conventional reaction produces 204 electron volts per atom with hydrogen?
Nothing, which is why I said not hugely much more energy that normal reactions. The point is that there should be significant amounts of hydrinos in the waste. For example, with 204 eV per reaction, a 10kW reactor operating for an hour should produce about 3.6 grams of hydrinos. I don't see how all that could be hidden so that their presence wouldn't be obvious to other scientists if they were allowed to study the waste products.
He has in the past but the hydrino is in the form of a minute amount of hydrino hydrated compound of gas fettered in some matrix. It's not like he has tanks of pure di-hydrino gas.
Where does he say that? All I've seen that he claims that dark matter consists of hydrinos. So maybe in his current theory hydrinos are actually undetectable. That would be convenient.
Edit: Also, in Mills' theory hydrino reactions don't produce hugely much more energy per hydrogen atom compared to normal reactions, so if he really had a working kW-class reactor, it would absolutely have to produce macroscopic amounts of hydrinos.
Even if you buy into the theory that hydrinos are dark matter so they don't react strongly with normal matter and are hard to detect, that would just mean that hydrinos generated by the reactor would fall through the Earth and orbit the center of the Earth. And that would mean a detectable drop in the mass of the reactor.
Mills concept of dark matter is hydrogen in stable lower states, not exotic matter that doesn't gravitationally interact with normal matter. Even so, why would hydrino's fall through the earth? Mills says they float off into space as diHydrino gas as hydrogen gas does.
Why would you think I meant "exotic matter that doesn't gravitationally interact with normal matter"? It wouldn't fall through the Earth if it didn't interact gravitationally. It would fall through the Earth and orbit the center of the Earth if it *only* interacted gravitationally with normal matter. If you think it's going to "float off into space" then you have to believe that it doesn't interact gravitationally with normal matter (and hence isn't an explanation for dark matter).
Anyway, whether it drops through the Earth or floats into space or whatever, my point remains: either the hydrinos produced would stick around and they could be provided to other scientists as proof it works, or they leave somehow and the reactor loses significant mass. It has to be one or the other, and either should be a simple way to provide strong evidence of hydrinos. But we've never been given such evidence. Why not?
I also agree hydrino's can readily be studied as byproducts of the reaction as I showed they have been in a response above. My understanding of the process is that the individual hydrino atoms thus formed bind together as diHydrino gas which has a mass very close to molecular hydrogen gas which tends to float off into space. Mills has studied it directly as it forms and also has "gettered" some gas into crystals for study. The point is that it does appear relatively easy to form and study them so the main reason I see for the dearth of corroborating evidence must be related to the belief that hydrino's aren't worth studying because they simply "don't exist" in the minds of most scientists who would be in a position to do so.
I also agree hydrino's can readily be studied as byproducts of the reaction as I showed they have been in a response above. My understanding of the process is that the individual hydrino atoms thus formed bind together as diHydrino gas which has a mass very close to molecular hydrogen gas which tends to float off into space. Mills has studied it directly as it forms and also has "gettered" some gas into crystals for study. The point is that it does appear relatively easy to form and study them so the main reason I see for the dearth of corroborating evidence must be related to the belief that hydrino's aren't worth studying because they simply "don't exist" in the minds of most scientists who would be in a position to do so.
This is total nonsense. We are not in 1600s anymore when new ideas were punished.
And more recently, since birth of quantum mechanics (circa 1920) physicists are even more willing to look at "weird" ideas (because history has proven that sometimes "weird" ideas are actually right).
If someone has a repeatable experiment, and it is confirmed by others, scientists _will not_ ignore it, no matter how "weird" it is. It will be studied. Theories will be developed to explain it. There is no "cabal" to suppress such things.
But hydrino people don't have verified experimental data. They have only "trust us, it's real!" PR and "experiments" made by them. Not independently verified.
Basically, what you are doing in this thread is more hydrino PR.
I agree it will be studied but sometimes it takes a very long time. And it is taking a very long time but slowly it's happening. I never said there was a cabal suppressing it. I said there is a dearth of corroborating evidence which is a fact. It's also a fact that there seems little interest in investigating the hydrino. Hydrino science isn't being suppressed as much as it's being ignored.
Hydrino science isn't being suppressed as much as it's being ignored.Which leads to the obvious question, why?
Hydrino science isn't being suppressed as much as it's being ignored.Which leads to the obvious question, why?
New physics is what most physicists get really excited about. New physics that can be explored for less than gigabucks AND has potential near term real world benefits AND addresses major questions in cosmology is pretty much unheard of these days. If it was even vaguely plausible, interest from the wider physics community should be off the charts. Who would want to spend years putting another decimal point on some obscure corner of the standard model when they could pioneer a whole new field?
If BLP could demonstrate that the supposed underlying physics worked, they'd have the richest nations in the world breaking down their doors to throw money at them to bring it to industrial scale, plus a Nobel and global recognition on a par with Einstein. Everything CERN has ever done would be small potatoes in comparison. Given the supposedly easily observable macroscopic effects, demonstrating the effect is real should not be a high bar.
Yet back in the real world, BLP have spent the last quarter century doing dog and pony shows aimed at investors, and essentially no one outside of Mills immediate circle has found it interesting enough to pursue. This doesn't guarantee Mills is wrong, but for anyone without an physics degree trying to evaluate the situation, it should be a pretty strong prior.
They ignore evidence that flies in the face of established theory like states below the ground state they just "know" must be wrong.Like you "know" hydrinos are real. Despite all of the evidence that they aren't:
People get excited by new physics that fits their conceptions of what new physics should be true. They ignore evidence that flies in the face of established theory like states below the ground state they just "know" must be wrong.
Science is littered with examples of correct ideas having a real hard time getting traction.
They ignore evidence that flies in the face of established theory like states below the ground state they just "know" must be wrong.Like you "know" hydrinos are real. Despite all of the evidence that they aren't:
-NASA has tested devices and found Mills' measurements to have been wrong, actual generated power levels are consistent with classical explanations.
-The theory is self-contradictory nonsense.
-There are multiple ways that given results matching what Mills claims to have gotten, clear demonstrations should be available by now. (working power generation, hydrino samples, hydrogen disappearing from the samples, etc.)
People get excited by new physics that fits their conceptions of what new physics should be true. They ignore evidence that flies in the face of established theory like states below the ground state they just "know" must be wrong.
That's nonsense. Most scientists love learning new things. They particularly love the idea of getting in on something new in the early days and beating their colleagues to the new stuff.
The only one ignoring evidence that doesn't fit their world view here is you. Look at the past century of progress that has come directly from mainstream science. Now look at what has come from what mainstream science calls pseudo-science. Every bit of evidence suggests our mainstream science establishment is looking for new ideas all the time and embraces new ideas quickly when there is reason to think they are valid.Science is littered with examples of correct ideas having a real hard time getting traction.
Not at all. Most correct ideas in science took no time at all getting traction. The few that didn't were in areas where evidence is subjective and hard to interpret, not areas such as physics where evidence is very easy to interpret and experiments are very easy to replicate.
Mills is either a hero, or a crackpot following a delusion, or a scam artist.
It's very difficult to see how a "hydrino" state could have been missed - atoms have been very thoroughly studied, after all.
An alternative explanation for what's going on in the demonstrations is pretty hard to give, since nobody has been allowed to independently study his experimental setup. That's a huge red flag, by the way. All BLP has allowed in are observers who have been allowed to measure the output of the apparatus during brief demonstrations, but they have never been allowed to actually use the equipment itself.
All of the supposed hydrino catalysts have been observed so often under so many conditions - and yet, no anomalous energy has even been noticed before. But according to Mills, we should be seeing tons of it.
How is it that nobody has ever independently verified the existence of the hydrino?
The "realist" view is that Mills is a scam artist who has taken millions of investment dollars and never produced a working product.
It's true Mills does things differentlyOnly if by "differently" you mean "exactly the same as crackpots and frauds."
Note that doesn't mean secretive, just protective as he publishes all his methods so in principle anyone could do the experiments. Mills will allow researchers to reproduce his reactions as long as they sign an NDA.These sentences are contradictory. Also the second is just stupid, since if a researcher signed an NDA, then they wouldn't be able to publish, so that would immediately prevent independent verification.
I believe some independent scientists have reproduced Mills results in their own labs and with their own equipment.At this point you seem like you are living in a dream world. You have already admitted you have no evidence to back up this claim, and there has been independent refutation by NASA. (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/TM-107167.pdf)
It's easy to see how the hydrino state could have been missed with the science of the late nineteenth century.Maybe the 19th century (1800s), but it would have been a bit hard to miss in the 20th century.
It's a non-radiative stable state. You only see it when it's forming. It would be hard for that science to notice a continuum spectrum like the following in the UV and EUV range if they didn't even suspect it was there and if it wasn't happening with massive reaction kinetics,Besides the other contradictions in the theory, Mills' claim includes multiple states, so it should be radiative. It includes discrete states, so why should it be a continuous spectrum? Hydrogen has UV spectral lines, so you are claiming scientists are blind.
the kinetics it took Mills over twenty years to figure out how to create.What 20 year period? 20 years ago he claimed to have been creating hydrinos. Had he started 20 years before that?
It's true Mills does things differentlyOnly if by "differently" you mean "exactly the same as crackpots and frauds."Note that doesn't mean secretive, just protective as he publishes all his methods so in principle anyone could do the experiments. Mills will allow researchers to reproduce his reactions as long as they sign an NDA.These sentences are contradictory. Also the second is just stupid, since if a researcher signed an NDA, then they wouldn't be able to publish, so that would immediately prevent independent verification.I believe some independent scientists have reproduced Mills results in their own labs and with their own equipment.At this point you seem like you are living in a dream world. You have already admitted you have no evidence to back up this claim, and there has been independent refutation by NASA. (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/TM-107167.pdf)It's easy to see how the hydrino state could have been missed with the science of the late nineteenth century.Maybe the 19th century (1800s), but it would have been a bit hard to miss in the 20th century.It's a non-radiative stable state. You only see it when it's forming. It would be hard for that science to notice a continuum spectrum like the following in the UV and EUV range if they didn't even suspect it was there and if it wasn't happening with massive reaction kinetics,Besides the other contradictions in the theory, Mills' claim includes multiple states, so it should be radiative. It includes discrete states, so why should it be a continuous spectrum? Hydrogen has UV spectral lines, so you are claiming scientists are blind.the kinetics it took Mills over twenty years to figure out how to create.What 20 year period? 20 years ago he claimed to have been creating hydrinos. Had he started 20 years before that?
Hydrino formation would still be easy to miss in the 20th century because people were indoctrinated against it by quantum orthodoxy so any conforming evidence would be assumed artifacts.
Hydrino formation would still be easy to miss in the 20th century because people were indoctrinated against it by quantum orthodoxy so any conforming evidence would be assumed artifacts.
Convenient, isn't it? Just assert, without evidence, that all of the scientific establishment missed the obvious evidence because they're all "indoctrinated". They're all part of the "orthodoxy". It explains away anything, and you don't have to confront the uncomfortable fact that thousands of different people at hundreds of different institutions who spend their whole lives studying this kind of thing and are responsible for all the wonders of technology all disagree with your world view.
Hydrino formation would still be easy to miss in the 20th century because people were indoctrinated against it by quantum orthodoxy so any conforming evidence would be assumed artifacts.
Convenient, isn't it? Just assert, without evidence, that all of the scientific establishment missed the obvious evidence because they're all "indoctrinated". They're all part of the "orthodoxy". It explains away anything, and you don't have to confront the uncomfortable fact that thousands of different people at hundreds of different institutions who spend their whole lives studying this kind of thing and are responsible for all the wonders of technology all disagree with your world view.
Whether or not an argument is convenient is irrelevant.
I'm merely speculating on how such a thing could be missed.
You seem to think that's impossible.
I think you are mistaken when you claim thousands of people have studied "this kind of thing"
and use that as a statement to prove your case that hydrino's simply don't exist because they would have been found. I can't accept your argument of equivalence. You can't find below ground states if you already know below ground states do not exist.
I sense the very possibility that hydrino's exist and were missed offends your rosy view of science.
Science simply could not have failed that big over the last century.
The stakes are huge. You may think I'm attacking the process of science but I'm really not.
Correction and retrenchment are also part of the process. It's not linear.
It will be interesting to hear your reaction when hydrino's are either confirmed and accepted by scientists you trust. What would you say?
I think you are mistaken when you claim thousands of people have studied "this kind of thing" and use that as a statement to prove your case that hydrino's simply don't exist because they would have been found. I can't accept your argument of equivalence. You can't find below ground states if you already know below ground states do not exist.You apparently have no concept of the number of people doing scientific research. We have discovered many things that we didn't know exist before we discovered them. Claiming that doing so is impossible is simply wrong.
I sense the very possibility that hydrino's exist and were missed offends your rosy view of science.You seem to be offended by any implication that Mills is wrong. The only difference between this and a pot/kettle/black situation is that you have effectively no supporting evidence, and there is a lot of evidence against Mills that you continue to ignore.
It will be interesting to hear your reaction when hydrino's are either confirmed and accepted by scientists you trust. What would you say?Accepted by scientists implies that strong evidence exists, and every reasonable person here would also accept it.
Hydrino formation would still be easy to miss in the 20th century because people were indoctrinated against it by quantum orthodoxy so any conforming evidence would be assumed artifacts.
Convenient, isn't it? Just assert, without evidence, that all of the scientific establishment missed the obvious evidence because they're all "indoctrinated". They're all part of the "orthodoxy". It explains away anything, and you don't have to confront the uncomfortable fact that thousands of different people at hundreds of different institutions who spend their whole lives studying this kind of thing and are responsible for all the wonders of technology all disagree with your world view.
Whether or not an argument is convenient is irrelevant.
Then you're missing my point.
I'll lay out my point in more detail. One chemist claims evidence for the hydrino. He has claimed evidence for it for decades. You find his evidence compelling. The scientific community does not find his evidence compelling. So, either you're wrong or the entire scientific mainstream is wrong.
Your claim that the scientific mainstream is so biased that it missed clear evidence for decades is not based on any external evidence. There's no other phenomenon that modern physics ignored the evidence for for decades, then was eventually proven true. So your belief that mainstream science is biased enough to miss clear evidence is based entirely on you deciding your judgement about the current evidence for the hydrino is better than the judgement of the entire scientific community about the same evidence.
That's convenient for your continued belief in your own judgement, but not persuasive to anyone else.I'm merely speculating on how such a thing could be missed.
And you're speculating that because you don't want to accept the idea that if you think one thing and the entire scientific community thinks another, it's more likely that you're wrong than that they're wrong.You seem to think that's impossible.
Not impossible, just extremely unlikely. I'm making that judgement based on the evidence.I think you are mistaken when you claim thousands of people have studied "this kind of thing"
By "this kind of thing" I mean physics.and use that as a statement to prove your case that hydrino's simply don't exist because they would have been found. I can't accept your argument of equivalence. You can't find below ground states if you already know below ground states do not exist.
You fundamentally misunderstand scientists. Nearly every scientist follows the evidence, even if that evidence contradicts what they thought they knew. Nearly every experiment in physics today is looking for evidence to contradict existing theory. Physicists want that. Just confirming the existing theory doesn't garner much glory. Success in physics comes much more from uncovering evidence of something outside what current theory predicts.I sense the very possibility that hydrino's exist and were missed offends your rosy view of science.
Not at all. If there was convincing evidence that they exist, I'd be thrilled.Science simply could not have failed that big over the last century.
No, I don't believe it could not have. I think it's unlikely. The claim that it did requires persuasive evidence. I'm not persuaded by the current evidence, and neither is the scientific community.The stakes are huge. You may think I'm attacking the process of science but I'm really not.
No, you're not attacking the process, but you're attacking scientists. You are claiming they are heavily biased and unable to see clear evidence. And your basis for claiming that is that you disagree with their evaluation of the evidence.Correction and retrenchment are also part of the process. It's not linear.
It will be interesting to hear your reaction when hydrino's are either confirmed and accepted by scientists you trust. What would you say?
If they were confirmed, I'd be happy to hear it.
See, there's the difference. I'm willing to accept the judgement of people who know more about the subject than I do. You are not. The scientific establishment has judged the evidence and found it lacking. You are not willing to accept that.
I think you are mistaken when you claim thousands of people have studied "this kind of thing" and use that as a statement to prove your case that hydrino's simply don't exist because they would have been found. I can't accept your argument of equivalence. You can't find below ground states if you already know below ground states do not exist.You apparently have no concept of the number of people doing scientific research. We have discovered many things that we didn't know exist before we discovered them. Claiming that doing so is impossible is simply wrong.I sense the very possibility that hydrino's exist and were missed offends your rosy view of science.You seem to be offended by any implication that Mills is wrong. The only difference between this and a pot/kettle/black situation is that you have effectively no supporting evidence, and there is a lot of evidence against Mills that you continue to ignore.It will be interesting to hear your reaction when hydrino's are either confirmed and accepted by scientists you trust. What would you say?Accepted by scientists implies that strong evidence exists, and every reasonable person here would also accept it.
Now a simple question for you: Given the lack of sound theory, the lack of any supporting evidence, the replications that failed to replicate claimed power levels, and the mountain of historical science that conflicts with the concept, why do you still support Mills?
Relatedly, why are you convinced that replications exist when there is no evidence that any replications exist?
I've not seen any answers here regarding the megawatt power Mills gets out of his reaction or the extreme UV spectra.
I don't know where you get your supposed facts. One (supposedly) null test by NASA of one type of hydrino reaction doesn't disprove hydrino's exist.Nothing "supposedly" about it. And it clearly demonstrates that Mills has large experimental errors, to the point that his basic competency is called into question.
Later tests by other people, whom for whatever reason you discount or disqualify, does show evidence. I can understand you not agreeing the tests are convincing but don't keep claiming no one else has tested this. That's simply not the case.I discount them because as best I can tell they don't exist. I will stop claiming this when you point to a single case of someone testing this with positive results.
I cannot accept your assertions as valid statements of fact so I can't accept them as valid reasons for not supporting Mills' claims.I cannot accept your assertions as valid statements of fact so I can't accept them as valid reasons for
But maybe this helps a little. When I listen to a critic such as yourself, I compare that to what Mills himself says in print and in person. I find his arguments and the way he presents his case far, far more compelling that I do your counter arguments. In science, it boils down to straightforward scientific arguments rather than numbers of people, personalities or even previously accepted theory. At this point, Mills convinces me by his scientific arguments, copious amounts of experimental data and tenacious pursuit of truth while your counter arguments don't.Name one compelling argument Mills makes. It does boil down to straightforward scientific arguments, and Mills' theory is simply mathematically inconsistent, if you think otherwise, you simply know nothing about the relevant math. The experimental data is simply against Mills, and even if there was an interesting anomaly in the experimental results, the fundamental inconsistency in the hydrino theory means he should be looking for a different explanation. You do not get to claim anything about "pursuit of truth" when I have lost count of the number of outright false statements you have made.
It is a fact that Mills' work has been highly ridiculed in public by many famous scientists. I do attack those people for poisoning the well based on their gut feeling rather than objective scientific analysis. Specifically, Bob Park, who famously jibbed hydrino's can't exist because below ground states are like being "south of the South Pole". That's not a professional dispassionate discussion of the facts. That has happened and it's an embarrassment to science. So no, I do understand science. Science is done by people and people have faults and make mistakes. They form cultures and exhibit biases. They can have closed minds.
It is a fact that Mills' work has been highly ridiculed in public by many famous scientists. I do attack those people for poisoning the well based on their gut feeling rather than objective scientific analysis. Specifically, Bob Park, who famously jibbed hydrino's can't exist because below ground states are like being "south of the South Pole". That's not a professional dispassionate discussion of the facts. That has happened and it's an embarrassment to science. So no, I do understand science. Science is done by people and people have faults and make mistakes. They form cultures and exhibit biases. They can have closed minds.
The point is, since 1600s and especially since ~1900, scientists _will not_ dismiss the evidence, however contradictory it is to currently accepted theories, when it is independently reproduced. This was happening centuries ago, but not today. Facts speak louder that words.
But Mills need to provide these facts: he should tell others exactly how to duplicate experiments, others should succeed in doing so (and interpretation of results should match what Mills says it is, not "well, we got spectra, and after analyzing it this looks completely normal, no unexpected lines").
_Anything else_ does not cut it. No amount of flashy web pages, videos and graphs produced by Mills would help. No amount of defensive blog and forum posts. And alleging that there is a great cabal which suppresses evidence of hydrinos is not only not helping, it quickly destroys whatever credibility remains (since that is exactly what frauds do, and honest scientists do not).
I've not seen any answers here regarding the megawatt power Mills gets out of his reaction or the extreme UV spectra.
What is it in these spectra that points to anything like hydrinos? Why couldn't the spectral lines be from inner shell transitions in some other atoms?
I don't know where you get your supposed facts. One (supposedly) null test by NASA of one type of hydrino reaction doesn't disprove hydrino's exist.Nothing "supposedly" about it. And it clearly demonstrates that Mills has large experimental errors, to the point that his basic competency is called into question.Later tests by other people, whom for whatever reason you discount or disqualify, does show evidence. I can understand you not agreeing the tests are convincing but don't keep claiming no one else has tested this. That's simply not the case.I discount them because as best I can tell they don't exist. I will stop claiming this when you point to a single case of someone testing this with positive results.I cannot accept your assertions as valid statements of fact so I can't accept them as valid reasons for not supporting Mills' claims.I cannot accept your assertions as valid statements of fact so I can't accept them as valid reasons fornotsupporting Mills' claims.
See how this works? Although I am not sure what assertions I have made that I didn't provide supporting evidence for, meanwhile you have not provided any evidence.But maybe this helps a little. When I listen to a critic such as yourself, I compare that to what Mills himself says in print and in person. I find his arguments and the way he presents his case far, far more compelling that I do your counter arguments. In science, it boils down to straightforward scientific arguments rather than numbers of people, personalities or even previously accepted theory. At this point, Mills convinces me by his scientific arguments, copious amounts of experimental data and tenacious pursuit of truth while your counter arguments don't.Name one compelling argument Mills makes. It does boil down to straightforward scientific arguments, and Mills' theory is simply mathematically inconsistent, if you think otherwise, you simply know nothing about the relevant math. The experimental data is simply against Mills, and even if there was an interesting anomaly in the experimental results, the fundamental inconsistency in the hydrino theory means he should be looking for a different explanation. You do not get to claim anything about "pursuit of truth" when I have lost count of the number of outright false statements you have made.
It's a simple statement of fact that Mills has been terribly mistreated regardless of whether he is right or wrong. If he were wrong, that's not an excuse for how he has been abused.
Name one compelling argument Mills makes. It does boil down to straightforward scientific arguments, and Mills' theory is simply mathematically inconsistent, if you think otherwise, you simply know nothing about the relevant math. The experimental data is simply against Mills, and even if there was an interesting anomaly in the experimental results, the fundamental inconsistency in the hydrino theory means he should be looking for a different explanation. You do not get to claim anything about "pursuit of truth" when I have lost count of the number of outright false statements you have made.
I've read Mills book. Almost any page is far more convincing that anything you have said. But the spectrum, and the ro-vibration data is a gold standard that perfectly fits hydrino transition. All you have done is claim Mills hasn't convinced you. I reject your claim of fundamental inconsistencies in Mills work. I reject your argument that Mills should reinterpret his experimental discovery, probably the discovery of the century and worthy of a Nobel prize, because you claim his math is inconsistent.
It's a simple statement of fact that Mills has been terribly mistreated regardless of whether he is right or wrong. If he were wrong, that's not an excuse for how he has been abused.
That is not a statement of fact. That is a statement of opinion. Whether his treatment was mistreatment or not is a fundamentally subjective issue. Whether you consider it mistreatment or not, you should be able to recognize the differences between questions on which the answers are objective and questions on which the answers are subjective.Name one compelling argument Mills makes. It does boil down to straightforward scientific arguments, and Mills' theory is simply mathematically inconsistent, if you think otherwise, you simply know nothing about the relevant math. The experimental data is simply against Mills, and even if there was an interesting anomaly in the experimental results, the fundamental inconsistency in the hydrino theory means he should be looking for a different explanation. You do not get to claim anything about "pursuit of truth" when I have lost count of the number of outright false statements you have made.
I've read Mills book. Almost any page is far more convincing that anything you have said. But the spectrum, and the ro-vibration data is a gold standard that perfectly fits hydrino transition. All you have done is claim Mills hasn't convinced you. I reject your claim of fundamental inconsistencies in Mills work. I reject your argument that Mills should reinterpret his experimental discovery, probably the discovery of the century and worthy of a Nobel prize, because you claim his math is inconsistent.
You're missing the point. It's not your opinion versus that of meberbs. It's your opinion versus the opinion of the entire scientific establishment. meberbs was quoting the fundamental inconsistencies from a reputable expert in the field who did the analysis and concluded Mills' theories are unsound.
It's a simple statement of fact that Mills has been terribly mistreated regardless of whether he is right or wrong. If he were wrong, that's not an excuse for how he has been abused.
That is not a statement of fact. That is a statement of opinion. Whether his treatment was mistreatment or not is a fundamentally subjective issue. Whether you consider it mistreatment or not, you should be able to recognize the differences between questions on which the answers are objective and questions on which the answers are subjective.Name one compelling argument Mills makes. It does boil down to straightforward scientific arguments, and Mills' theory is simply mathematically inconsistent, if you think otherwise, you simply know nothing about the relevant math. The experimental data is simply against Mills, and even if there was an interesting anomaly in the experimental results, the fundamental inconsistency in the hydrino theory means he should be looking for a different explanation. You do not get to claim anything about "pursuit of truth" when I have lost count of the number of outright false statements you have made.
I've read Mills book. Almost any page is far more convincing that anything you have said. But the spectrum, and the ro-vibration data is a gold standard that perfectly fits hydrino transition. All you have done is claim Mills hasn't convinced you. I reject your claim of fundamental inconsistencies in Mills work. I reject your argument that Mills should reinterpret his experimental discovery, probably the discovery of the century and worthy of a Nobel prize, because you claim his math is inconsistent.
You're missing the point. It's not your opinion versus that of meberbs. It's your opinion versus the opinion of the entire scientific establishment. meberbs was quoting the fundamental inconsistencies from a reputable expert in the field who did the analysis and concluded Mills' theories are unsound.
I hope you don't mean Rathke. His 'analysis' was a joke, radii led with misunderstanding and errors. If he represents the whole community it just proves my point.
I've not seen any answers here regarding the megawatt power Mills gets out of his reaction or the extreme UV spectra.
What is it in these spectra that points to anything like hydrinos? Why couldn't the spectral lines be from inner shell transitions in some other atoms?
Because the conditions to make those transitions are not there while the conditions theorized for hydrino transitions are. The spectrum has EUV continuum radiation. It's a signature of the hydrino transition.
I hope you don't mean Rathke. His 'analysis' was a joke, radii led with misunderstanding and errors. If he represents the whole community it just proves my point. And Mills mistreatment involved back room underhanded dealings to revoke a patent already granted when Peter Zimmerman and Bob Park harassed the head of the USPTO. Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year. But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.
I hope you don't mean Rathke. His 'analysis' was a joke,You accuse scientists of abusing Mills when they raise technical objections, yet you can put down Rathke by referring to his analysis as a "joke."
radii led with misunderstanding and errors.Name one error. And requiring a wavefunction to actually be square integrable, so that it has physical meaning, or noting that the universe has 3 macroscopic spatial dimensions are not errors, so if you are going to point back to Mills response you are going to have to find something in there that doesn't depend on those points.
And Mills mistreatment involved back room underhanded dealings to revoke a patent already granted when Peter Zimmerman and Bob Park harassed the head of the USPTO.That is sure an ... interesting ... interpretation of events.
Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year.You mean me applying critical thinking when presented with theory, and wanting evidence to back assertions? Speaking of which:
But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.At this point I can only consider this statement to be objectively false, because you have been asked for evidence of this repeatedly and provided none. The only explanations I can come up with for why you continue to repeat this without evidence are:
It is a fact that Mills' work has been highly ridiculed in public by many famous scientists. I do attack those people for poisoning the well based on their gut feeling rather than objective scientific analysis. Specifically, Bob Park, who famously jibbed hydrino's can't exist because below ground states are like being "south of the South Pole". That's not a professional dispassionate discussion of the facts. That has happened and it's an embarrassment to science. So no, I do understand science. Science is done by people and people have faults and make mistakes. They form cultures and exhibit biases. They can have closed minds.
The point is, since 1600s and especially since ~1900, scientists _will not_ dismiss the evidence, however contradictory it is to currently accepted theories, when it is independently reproduced. This was happening centuries ago, but not today. Facts speak louder that words.
But Mills need to provide these facts: he should tell others exactly how to duplicate experiments, others should succeed in doing so (and interpretation of results should match what Mills says it is, not "well, we got spectra, and after analyzing it this looks completely normal, no unexpected lines").
_Anything else_ does not cut it. No amount of flashy web pages, videos and graphs produced by Mills would help. No amount of defensive blog and forum posts. And alleging that there is a great cabal which suppresses evidence of hydrinos is not only not helping, it quickly destroys whatever credibility remains (since that is exactly what frauds do, and honest scientists do not).
Science and scientists have and do make mistakes. It's the process of correction that defines the scientific process, not the adamant defense of whatever is the status quo. It's a simple statement of fact that Mills has been terribly mistreated regardless of whether he is right or wrong. If he were wrong, that's not an excuse for how he has been abused.
It's a simple statement of fact that Mills has been terribly mistreated regardless of whether he is right or wrong. If he were wrong, that's not an excuse for how he has been abused.
That is not a statement of fact. That is a statement of opinion. Whether his treatment was mistreatment or not is a fundamentally subjective issue. Whether you consider it mistreatment or not, you should be able to recognize the differences between questions on which the answers are objective and questions on which the answers are subjective.Name one compelling argument Mills makes. It does boil down to straightforward scientific arguments, and Mills' theory is simply mathematically inconsistent, if you think otherwise, you simply know nothing about the relevant math. The experimental data is simply against Mills, and even if there was an interesting anomaly in the experimental results, the fundamental inconsistency in the hydrino theory means he should be looking for a different explanation. You do not get to claim anything about "pursuit of truth" when I have lost count of the number of outright false statements you have made.
I've read Mills book. Almost any page is far more convincing that anything you have said. But the spectrum, and the ro-vibration data is a gold standard that perfectly fits hydrino transition. All you have done is claim Mills hasn't convinced you. I reject your claim of fundamental inconsistencies in Mills work. I reject your argument that Mills should reinterpret his experimental discovery, probably the discovery of the century and worthy of a Nobel prize, because you claim his math is inconsistent.
You're missing the point. It's not your opinion versus that of meberbs. It's your opinion versus the opinion of the entire scientific establishment. meberbs was quoting the fundamental inconsistencies from a reputable expert in the field who did the analysis and concluded Mills' theories are unsound.
I hope you don't mean Rathke. His 'analysis' was a joke, radii led with misunderstanding and errors. If he represents the whole community it just proves my point.
Rathke's analysis was published in the New Journal of Physics, a peer-reviewed publication. So his analysis was reviewed by independent experts who agreed with his conclusions.
http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/PHY/ACT-RPR-PHY-Rathke-hydrino.pdf
It is a fact that Mills' work has been highly ridiculed in public by many famous scientists. I do attack those people for poisoning the well based on their gut feeling rather than objective scientific analysis. Specifically, Bob Park, who famously jibbed hydrino's can't exist because below ground states are like being "south of the South Pole". That's not a professional dispassionate discussion of the facts. That has happened and it's an embarrassment to science. So no, I do understand science. Science is done by people and people have faults and make mistakes. They form cultures and exhibit biases. They can have closed minds.
The point is, since 1600s and especially since ~1900, scientists _will not_ dismiss the evidence, however contradictory it is to currently accepted theories, when it is independently reproduced. This was happening centuries ago, but not today. Facts speak louder that words.
But Mills need to provide these facts: he should tell others exactly how to duplicate experiments, others should succeed in doing so (and interpretation of results should match what Mills says it is, not "well, we got spectra, and after analyzing it this looks completely normal, no unexpected lines").
_Anything else_ does not cut it. No amount of flashy web pages, videos and graphs produced by Mills would help. No amount of defensive blog and forum posts. And alleging that there is a great cabal which suppresses evidence of hydrinos is not only not helping, it quickly destroys whatever credibility remains (since that is exactly what frauds do, and honest scientists do not).
Science and scientists have and do make mistakes. It's the process of correction that defines the scientific process, not the adamant defense of whatever is the status quo. It's a simple statement of fact that Mills has been terribly mistreated regardless of whether he is right or wrong. If he were wrong, that's not an excuse for how he has been abused.
Yeah, more defensive posts, and more accusations that there are evil forces at play. I'm telling you, this is not what needs to be done if hydrino theory wants to get traction.
Flat Earthers are also routinely "terribly mistreated".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgY8zNZ35uw
How dare we to attack their theory? How dare we mock them? So what that it contradicts current knowledge? We should keep an open mind! Conspiracy!
I hope you don't mean Rathke. His 'analysis' was a joke, radii led with misunderstanding and errors. If he represents the whole community it just proves my point. And Mills mistreatment involved back room underhanded dealings to revoke a patent already granted when Peter Zimmerman and Bob Park harassed the head of the USPTO. Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year. But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.
Okay... just jumping in here.
Please provide evidence to support your claims. Patent numbers, Links to articles, publications etc. So I can make up my own mind about what you say. If you do not, I will have to assume you are a conspiracy crackpot with an axe to grind.
Mods. Sorry, I know this post probably falls outside the 'be awesome to each other' goal of NSF but this post from Bob0 really got my blood pressure up!
I've not seen any answers here regarding the megawatt power Mills gets out of his reaction or the extreme UV spectra.
What is it in these spectra that points to anything like hydrinos? Why couldn't the spectral lines be from inner shell transitions in some other atoms?
Because the conditions to make those transitions are not there while the conditions theorized for hydrino transitions are. The spectrum has EUV continuum radiation. It's a signature of the hydrino transition.
And how do we know that? What exactly were the conditions where the spectra were measured?
*snip* Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year. But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.
Mills has published peer reviewed papers also. So his theory was reviewed by independent experts who deemed the papers worthy of publication. Rathke made basic math errors in his analysis and misunderstands Mills' theory both of which mills pointed out and really all he says it that Mills' theory is not quantum mechanics. Of course it's not! But Rathke implied that means it's wrong. So why should I or anyone compare the hours Rathke spent on his paper vs. The lifetime Mills spent on his work? There is no comparison. Science always advances by the guy with the new idea, not the shill who shoots them down. Here is a link to a Scientific American article that mentioned Mills works last year and has a recent Rathke quote. It seems he's hedging just a bit on Mills energy creating reactions while still claiming Mills theory could not predict them. It will be interesting to see what he says when he admits hydrino's exist. Perhaps he will argue Mills doesn't deserve any credit for a mere lucky guess. It also put the NASA report in context, it wasn't a refutation, they did see some positive results, just not enough to stop what they were doing and focus on that.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cold-fusion-lives-experiments-create-energy-when-none-should-exist1/
Mills claims Rathke made nine errors.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253308848_Mills_Rebuttal_of_Rathke_Regarding_Hydrinos
really all he says it that Mills' theory is not quantum mechanics. Of course it's not! But Rathke implied that means it's wrong. So why should I or anyone compare the hours Rathke spent on his paper vs. The lifetime Mills spent on his work? There is no comparison.He says more than that, and anyway, if Mills theory is inconsistent with the many quantum mechanics results that have been experimentally tested, then it is obviously wrong. The time put in is simply irrelevant: 2 centuries of theory based on 1+1 = 3 would still be wrong.
“I think there is general agreement that the theory Dr. Mills has put forward as the basis for his claims is inconsistent and not capable of making experimental predictions,” Rathke continues. “Now, one could ask the question, ‘Could he have been lucky and stumbled upon some energy source that experimentally just works by following a wrong theoretical approach?’ ”Is this where you claims Rathke hedges? This isn't a hedge, it is a clear statement that the entire theory of hydrinos in nonsensical, and if there is any excess energy in the experiments, it is not due to hydrinos.
Mills has published peer reviewed papers also. So his theory was reviewed by independent experts who deemed the papers worthy of publication. Rathke made basic math errors in his analysis and misunderstands Mills' theory both of which mills pointed out and really all he says it that Mills' theory is not quantum mechanics. Of course it's not! But Rathke implied that means it's wrong. So why should I or anyone compare the hours Rathke spent on his paper vs. The lifetime Mills spent on his work? There is no comparison. Science always advances by the guy with the new idea, not the shill who shoots them down. Here is a link to a Scientific American article that mentioned Mills works last year and has a recent Rathke quote. It seems he's hedging just a bit on Mills energy creating reactions while still claiming Mills theory could not predict them. It will be interesting to see what he says when he admits hydrino's exist. Perhaps he will argue Mills doesn't deserve any credit for a mere lucky guess. It also put the NASA report in context, it wasn't a refutation, they did see some positive results, just not enough to stop what they were doing and focus on that.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cold-fusion-lives-experiments-create-energy-when-none-should-exist1/
Mills claims Rathke made nine errors.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253308848_Mills_Rebuttal_of_Rathke_Regarding_Hydrinos
Again what errors? If you had read my post, you would already realize that response is simply wrong.
As I already said multiple times, requiring a wavefunction to actually be square integrable, so that it has physical meaning, or noting that the universe has 3 macroscopic spatial dimensions are not errors.
Also:RathkeMills made basic math errors in his analysis and misunderstandsMills'existing theory both of whichmillsRathke pointed out.
When I can keep doing this to your sentences, it is probably because you aren't communicating anything with them. Unlike you I can point out a specific error made by Mills. He allowed wavefunctions that don't go to 0 at infinity. When you normalize such a wavefunction, you get the equation 1 = infinity. I hope you can see the problem there.really all he says it that Mills' theory is not quantum mechanics. Of course it's not! But Rathke implied that means it's wrong. So why should I or anyone compare the hours Rathke spent on his paper vs. The lifetime Mills spent on his work? There is no comparison.He says more than that, and anyway, if Mills theory is inconsistent with the many quantum mechanics results that have been experimentally tested, then it is obviously wrong. The time put in is simply irrelevant: 2 centuries of theory based on 1+1 = 3 would still be wrong.Quote“I think there is general agreement that the theory Dr. Mills has put forward as the basis for his claims is inconsistent and not capable of making experimental predictions,” Rathke continues. “Now, one could ask the question, ‘Could he have been lucky and stumbled upon some energy source that experimentally just works by following a wrong theoretical approach?’ ”Is this where you claims Rathke hedges? This isn't a hedge, it is a clear statement that the entire theory of hydrinos in nonsensical, and if there is any excess energy in the experiments, it is not due to hydrinos.
In a universe that is almost certainly not ours where hydrinos turn out to be real, it is easy to predict the kind of statements that Rathke would say, such as "these clear independent replications show that there is <insert value> energy produced by this reaction", and "This new theory of the hydrino is significantly different from the original to actually be consistent with known results in quantum mechanics, and to be internally self-consistent."
Meanwhile, your use of the word "will" in the sentence about Rathke admitting hydrinos exist indicates that you do not care about evidence and refuse to accept any possibility that they don't.
Mills states he found nine errors. I pointed you to his published comments but you may have to go through a paywall to read them.You had previously had provided 2 links to the response, one of which had no paywall for the 100+ page response to Rathke.
*snip* Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year. But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.
Who has?
Name names.
Also, there's still zero independent confirmation of the existence of the hydrino, so there's no reason for any scientist to agree with Mills.
Mills states he found nine errors. I pointed you to his published comments but you may have to go through a paywall to read them.You had previously had provided 2 links to the response, one of which had no paywall for the 100+ page response to Rathke.
The so-called "errors" include at least 2 things that are obviously not errors, and seemed as if removing those would make Mills' entire response invalid.
If there are any real errors please describe them here yourself. Quoting and paraphrasing are acceptable, assuming you actually understand what Rathke or Mills wrote.
Otherwise I agree with gospacex, there is no point in continuing this conversation. You seem immune to both logic and evidence and incapable of providing evidence to back your own assertions.
*snip* Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year. But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.
Who has?
Name names.
Also, there's still zero independent confirmation of the existence of the hydrino, so there's no reason for any scientist to agree with Mills.
I still disagree that there is zero independent confirming evidence. But assuming you were correct for the moment and there were none, as you assert no scientist would have reason to agree with Mills, if no scientist takes an interest in doing an experiment to find out, then a possible new discovery might languish forever. Scientists do not have to agree or believe to investigate. In fact, they should vigorously investigate this to put it to rest rather than rely on theoretical arguments as to why it must be wrong.
But it's funny that the few who have investigated end up validating Mills work. It's also telling that Mills has a team of a dozen skilled scientists in his employment who put their names on his papers too.
*snip* Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year. But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.
Who has?
Name names.
Also, there's still zero independent confirmation of the existence of the hydrino, so there's no reason for any scientist to agree with Mills.
I still disagree that there is zero independent confirming evidence. But assuming you were correct for the moment and there were none, as you assert no scientist would have reason to agree with Mills, if no scientist takes an interest in doing an experiment to find out, then a possible new discovery might languish forever. Scientists do not have to agree or believe to investigate. In fact, they should vigorously investigate this to put it to rest rather than rely on theoretical arguments as to why it must be wrong.
But it's funny that the few who have investigated end up validating Mills work. It's also telling that Mills has a team of a dozen skilled scientists in his employment who put their names on his papers too.
You can disagree until you are blue in the face, the fact is you have claimed multiple times that there are supporting experiments that repeat Mills' findings, but have been unable to show any.
In fact, those that have taken a close look at Mills' work have found it to be erroneous, deficient, or both.
"it's funny that the few who have investigated end up validating Mills work"
You keep saying that, but continue to be unable to say who they are, and in fact the opposite is true.
But I'll say this. Rathke starts by asserting that the classical wave equation Mills uses is not Lorent invariant for any velocity other than c. That's not an issue since first, Mills is writing a Classical theory, and the classical wave equation certainly is valid for many kinds of waves if sub light speed. Rathke is implying teh classical wave equation itself is not valid. Second, the Shrodinger equation, the foundation of quantum mechanics, is also not Lorentz invariant. Thirdly, we are not concerned with transforming an electrons velocity in an atom to another reference frame anymore than we woud, a solution of Shrodingers equation. It's a non-issue.You missed the point, Mills claims his theory is Lorentz invariant. His theory is not Lorentz invariant. Yes, it is OK if his theory is not Lorentz invariant, but the issue is that he claims it is.
Then, Rathke states "If you combine the relations in equations (2)–(4) with the classical circularRathke realizes that it isn't a simple Bohr Model, however Mills theory apparently has Bohr model radii as a starting point. Rathke is just pointing out that equation 2 needs a factor of n in it. On its own this would be an simple enough mistake, and doesn't seem to cause any real issues if you use Rathke's corrected equation. The issues discussed after that are the important ones, as they show fundamental inconsistency.
motion of an electron in the Coulomb field of a proton, the ground state of Bohr’s model is the only solution. No solutions exist for excited states of the hydrogen atom. " which makes no sense at all because that is not Mills model,it's not a simple Bohr model. Rathke doesn't seem to understand what Mills is doing. Mills model for excited states includes a piece I think Rathke doesn't realize which is a photon propagating in the Orbitsphere.
Rathke also makes mathematical assertions about whether the radial equations work. I will have to go through those in more detail first but I suspect Rathke again is misapplying and/or misunderstanding Mills' model.Not much to misapply there, Mills provides an equation and its supposed solution. It is simple math to check if that is true, and it isn't. Interpretations of meaning and other vague criteria simply aren't involved. If there is a mathematical mistake please point it out. If somehow the original equations were written wrong, please point to the correct ones.
*snip* Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year. But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.
Who has?
Name names.
Also, there's still zero independent confirmation of the existence of the hydrino, so there's no reason for any scientist to agree with Mills.
I still disagree that there is zero independent confirming evidence. But assuming you were correct for the moment and there were none, as you assert no scientist would have reason to agree with Mills, if no scientist takes an interest in doing an experiment to find out, then a possible new discovery might languish forever. Scientists do not have to agree or believe to investigate. In fact, they should vigorously investigate this to put it to rest rather than rely on theoretical arguments as to why it must be wrong.
But it's funny that the few who have investigated end up validating Mills work. It's also telling that Mills has a team of a dozen skilled scientists in his employment who put their names on his papers too.
You can disagree until you are blue in the face, the fact is you have claimed multiple times that there are supporting experiments that repeat Mills' findings, but have been unable to show any.
In fact, those that have taken a close look at Mills' work have found it to be erroneous, deficient, or both.
"it's funny that the few who have investigated end up validating Mills work"
You keep saying that, but continue to be unable to say who they are, and in fact the opposite is true.
I pointed directly to a presentation by Validators with names. Do you discount that? Here is one of the names I know of, Peter M. Jansson of Bucknell University.
http://www.bucknell.edu/engineering-college-of/academic-departments/electrical-and-computer-engineering/faculty-and-staff/peter-mark-jansson.html
You may be interested to know that Jansson, undergrad from MIT and PhD from Cambridge, is also interested in Mach effects and participated in the recent Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop.
I pointed directly to a presentation by Validators with names. Do you discount that? Here is one of the names I know of, Peter M. Jansson of Bucknell University.Jansson's work was funded by BLP as far back as 2009 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16535.msg430756#msg430756), and at that time at a least was using BLP supplied materials in experiments that did nothing to address the underlying physics claims.
http://www.bucknell.edu/engineering-college-of/academic-departments/electrical-and-computer-engineering/faculty-and-staff/peter-mark-jansson.html
I pointed directly to a presentation by Validators with names. Do you discount that? Here is one of the names I know of, Peter M. Jansson of Bucknell University.Jansson's work was funded by BLP as far back as 2009 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16535.msg430756#msg430756), and at that time at a least was using BLP supplied materials in experiments that did nothing to address the underlying physics claims.
http://www.bucknell.edu/engineering-college-of/academic-departments/electrical-and-computer-engineering/faculty-and-staff/peter-mark-jansson.html
But I'll say this. Rathke starts by asserting that the classical wave equation Mills uses is not Lorent invariant for any velocity other than c. That's not an issue since first, Mills is writing a Classical theory, and the classical wave equation certainly is valid for many kinds of waves if sub light speed. Rathke is implying teh classical wave equation itself is not valid. Second, the Shrodinger equation, the foundation of quantum mechanics, is also not Lorentz invariant. Thirdly, we are not concerned with transforming an electrons velocity in an atom to another reference frame anymore than we woud, a solution of Shrodingers equation. It's a non-issue.You missed the point, Mills claims his theory is Lorentz invariant. His theory is not Lorentz invariant. Yes, it is OK if his theory is not Lorentz invariant, but the issue is that he claims it is.Then, Rathke states "If you combine the relations in equations (2)–(4) with the classical circularRathke realizes that it isn't a simple Bohr Model, however Mills theory apparently has Bohr model radii as a starting point. Rathke is just pointing out that equation 2 needs a factor of n in it. On its own this would be an simple enough mistake, and doesn't seem to cause any real issues if you use Rathke's corrected equation. The issues discussed after that are the important ones, as they show fundamental inconsistency.
motion of an electron in the Coulomb field of a proton, the ground state of Bohr’s model is the only solution. No solutions exist for excited states of the hydrogen atom. " which makes no sense at all because that is not Mills model,it's not a simple Bohr model. Rathke doesn't seem to understand what Mills is doing. Mills model for excited states includes a piece I think Rathke doesn't realize which is a photon propagating in the Orbitsphere.Rathke also makes mathematical assertions about whether the radial equations work. I will have to go through those in more detail first but I suspect Rathke again is misapplying and/or misunderstanding Mills' model.Not much to misapply there, Mills provides an equation and its supposed solution. It is simple math to check if that is true, and it isn't. Interpretations of meaning and other vague criteria simply aren't involved. If there is a mathematical mistake please point it out. If somehow the original equations were written wrong, please point to the correct ones.
*snip* Meberb's seems representational of the kind of thinking I've seen for year. But not the entire scientific community. More side with Mills every day.
Who has?
Name names.
Also, there's still zero independent confirmation of the existence of the hydrino, so there's no reason for any scientist to agree with Mills.
I still disagree that there is zero independent confirming evidence. But assuming you were correct for the moment and there were none, as you assert no scientist would have reason to agree with Mills, if no scientist takes an interest in doing an experiment to find out, then a possible new discovery might languish forever. Scientists do not have to agree or believe to investigate. In fact, they should vigorously investigate this to put it to rest rather than rely on theoretical arguments as to why it must be wrong.
But it's funny that the few who have investigated end up validating Mills work. It's also telling that Mills has a team of a dozen skilled scientists in his employment who put their names on his papers too.
You can disagree until you are blue in the face, the fact is you have claimed multiple times that there are supporting experiments that repeat Mills' findings, but have been unable to show any.
In fact, those that have taken a close look at Mills' work have found it to be erroneous, deficient, or both.
"it's funny that the few who have investigated end up validating Mills work"
You keep saying that, but continue to be unable to say who they are, and in fact the opposite is true.
I pointed directly to a presentation by Validators with names. Do you discount that? Here is one of the names I know of, Peter M. Jansson of Bucknell University.
http://www.bucknell.edu/engineering-college-of/academic-departments/electrical-and-computer-engineering/faculty-and-staff/peter-mark-jansson.html
You may be interested to know that Jansson, undergrad from MIT and PhD from Cambridge, is also interested in Mach effects and participated in the recent Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop.
As I previously mentioned, the "independent validators" weren't really independent and they didn't do much to validate Mills' claims. They were allowed to observe demonstrations and take some measurements of them. That's it. They did not replicate the experimental setup or the findings. None of them say that they observed hydrinos.
What puzzles me even more than hydrino, is why, after 8 years, the moderators haven't deleted this thread.
Also, Rathke confuses hydrino and regular solutions. Second, Rathke uses the wrong function, it's not 1/r it's 1/r^2 which makes him claim the radial solutions are not solutions but he's not entirely at fault here.What equation are you claiming the mistake is in?
Rathke didn't read Mills papers closely enough to realize that the given solutions are 2D solutions on the bubble, not 3D solutions of the Bubble.The bubble itself would be a 2D feature in 3D space. A valid equation has to describe the bubble this way. This isn't a problem, because the dirac delta keeps everything confined to the 2D surface. Confusing interpretations don't matter anyway, not when we have solid math. Are you saying that one of equation 1, 5, or 6 isn't Mills' equation? Otherwise there is no issue here, and it is clear Rathke understands that the solution only exists on a 2D surface.
I believe the radial solution is really just the delta function which works perfectly well in the wave equation. Try it yourself. The 1/r2 is a constant on a fixed radius and should be written as 1/(r_n)^2 . Yes, Mills could have been more clear here.Still doesn't work. Maybe you tried calculating it for δ(r) instead of δ(r - rn).
Thirdly, Rathke makes a fundamental sign error that leads him to conclude angular eq. 6 is not a solution. That's a rather big deal because his conclusion is based on that.Where is this sign error? I don't see it.
Also, Rathke confuses hydrino and regular solutions. Second, Rathke uses the wrong function, it's not 1/r it's 1/r^2 which makes him claim the radial solutions are not solutions but he's not entirely at fault here.What equation are you claiming the mistake is in?Rathke didn't read Mills papers closely enough to realize that the given solutions are 2D solutions on the bubble, not 3D solutions of the Bubble.The bubble itself would be a 2D feature in 3D space. A valid equation has to describe the bubble this way. This isn't a problem, because the dirac delta keeps everything confined to the 2D surface. Confusing interpretations don't matter anyway, not when we have solid math. Are you saying that one of equation 1, 5, or 6 isn't Mills' equation? Otherwise there is no issue here, and it is clear Rathke understands that the solution only exists on a 2D surface.I believe the radial solution is really just the delta function which works perfectly well in the wave equation. Try it yourself. The 1/r2 is a constant on a fixed radius and should be written as 1/(r_n)^2 . Yes, Mills could have been more clear here.Still doesn't work. Maybe you tried calculating it for δ(r) instead of δ(r - rn).Thirdly, Rathke makes a fundamental sign error that leads him to conclude angular eq. 6 is not a solution. That's a rather big deal because his conclusion is based on that.Where is this sign error? I don't see it.
Now I believe Mills arrives at the bubble by construction and logic, not as a solution of the classical 3D wave equation directly.To me this is the only sentence that really matters in your post. This is an admission that Mills' theory is inconsistent. I could discuss the rest of your post, but what really matters is that his proposed solutions are not consistent with quantum mechanics or his modified theory. What is left is equations that he has pulled out of thin air, based on what you call "logic." Without a consistent theory though, this "logic" really just consists of making things up, and there are many simpler explanations for any of the experimental results that have been seen so far.
Mills informed me that he did not use the wave equation directly to solve the electron function but instead solved the rotational dynamics from the electron solution derived using Maxwell’s equations. He also stated that Rathke was solving a non existent problem. Just to be clear, I don't know Mills personally and all my exchanges with him are in the context of a discussion group online like this discussion with you. His answers are always terse and I can't claim to always know exactly what he means.Now I believe Mills arrives at the bubble by construction and logic, not as a solution of the classical 3D wave equation directly.To me this is the only sentence that really matters in your post. This is an admission that Mills' theory is inconsistent. I could discuss the rest of your post, but what really matters is that his proposed solutions are not consistent with quantum mechanics or his modified theory. What is left is equations that he has pulled out of thin air, based on what you call "logic." Without a consistent theory though, this "logic" really just consists of making things up, and there are many simpler explanations for any of the experimental results that have been seen so far.
Let me know if Mills ever responds to criticism by actually improving his theory and fixing flaws in it rather than using lots of words as a distraction to pretend there is no issue.
What puzzles me even more than hydrino, is why, after 8 years, the moderators haven't deleted this thread.
Mills told me that he did not use the wave equation to solve the electron function but instead solved the rotational dynamics from the electron solution derived using Maxwell’s equations.Maxwells equations do not predict discrete energy states., you need a quantum-like thory to do that and apparently Mills has none and is basically just making things up.
I did not say Mills' theory is inconsistent, But I'm working on my understanding of his derivation and I encourage you to look at Mills' derivations yourself instead of relying on my thoughts which are imperfect and incomplete. I pointed you to the source and it's free.I glanced through his stuff, but it basically looks like complete nonsense. He rejects quantum and then uses results from quantum, and just as you described, he has no consistent theory to tie it together. Much of what he does is inconsistent and baseless.
Also, of course Mills theory is inconsistent with quantum Mechanics, that's Mills whole point, quantum mechanics is fatally flawed in his view. Being 'inconsistent' with quantum mechanics isn't wrong unless you predefined the issue that way as either a new theory is entirely a form of quantum mechanics or it's wrong.It is okay for a theory to be inconsistent with quantum if it produces results consistent with what is experimentally known about quantum. It is apparent from this discussion and looking at Mills' work that he doesn't even have a theory, and his claims are not consistent with known experimental results.
Schrodinger invented a new equation to solve, without proof it was correct. It works ok for very simple systems. Mills has his own method. It seems to work even better for more complex systems.This is just willful ignorance on your part at this point. Quantum is hard to solve for complex systems, but there isn't any system that quantum is known to be inaccurate for (within its range of applicability, we have extensions of quantum to account for special relativity, which Mills just ignores while claiming his is better.) There is no support for claiming that Mills' theory is better, especially when it doesn't even describe simple systems right. For example, images have been made of the hydrogen atom wavefunction (source) (https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.213001) While that appears to be a new technique, there have been other experiments in the past that also provide agreement with quantum descriptions of orbitals.
Also, there is an over reliance on theory and it's so-called consistency which misleads some to reject good data over bad theory. That's really a shame.When the theory is bad, it can't explain the data, and other explanations for the data need to be looked at. If Mills discovered anything, it isn't a hydrino.
What puzzles me even more than hydrino, is why, after 8 years, the moderators haven't deleted this thread.
If there is anything to this power source, then it certainly has space based applications. Compact heat and electrical power sources are critical to cheaper deep space utilization. I don't know if there's anything to this or not. So many times with too many miracle power sources it has been bait and switch. I remain open to seeing what will happen.
More realistic sources like Helion or LPP don't make claims as fantastic as BLP or Rossi, and there really is not much to say about them. Other fusion attempts like Wendelstein, ITER, or General are just too large to have much applicable use near-term, even if they were suddenly working tomorrow.
I glanced through his stuff, but it basically looks like complete nonsense. He rejects quantum and then uses results from quantum, and just as you described, he has no consistent theory to tie it together. Much of what he does is inconsistent and baseless.
Mills told me that he did not use the wave equation to solve the electron function but instead solved the rotational dynamics from the electron solution derived using Maxwell’s equations.Maxwells equations do not predict discrete energy states., you need a quantum-like thory to do that and apparently Mills has none and is basically just making things up.I did not say Mills' theory is inconsistent, But I'm working on my understanding of his derivation and I encourage you to look at Mills' derivations yourself instead of relying on my thoughts which are imperfect and incomplete. I pointed you to the source and it's free.I glanced through his stuff, but it basically looks like complete nonsense. He rejects quantum and then uses results from quantum, and just as you described, he has no consistent theory to tie it together. Much of what he does is inconsistent and baseless.Also, of course Mills theory is inconsistent with quantum Mechanics, that's Mills whole point, quantum mechanics is fatally flawed in his view. Being 'inconsistent' with quantum mechanics isn't wrong unless you predefined the issue that way as either a new theory is entirely a form of quantum mechanics or it's wrong.It is okay for a theory to be inconsistent with quantum if it produces results consistent with what is experimentally known about quantum. It is apparent from this discussion and looking at Mills' work that he doesn't even have a theory, and his claims are not consistent with known experimental results.Schrodinger invented a new equation to solve, without proof it was correct. It works ok for very simple systems. Mills has his own method. It seems to work even better for more complex systems.This is just willful ignorance on your part at this point. Quantum is hard to solve for complex systems, but there isn't any system that quantum is known to be inaccurate for (within its range of applicability, we have extensions of quantum to account for special relativity, which Mills just ignores while claiming his is better.) There is no support for claiming that Mills' theory is better, especially when it doesn't even describe simple systems right. For example, images have been made of the hydrogen atom wavefunction (source) (https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.213001) While that appears to be a new technique, there have been other experiments in the past that also provide agreement with quantum descriptions of orbitals.Also, there is an over reliance on theory and it's so-called consistency which misleads some to reject good data over bad theory. That's really a shame.When the theory is bad, it can't explain the data, and other explanations for the data need to be looked at. If Mills discovered anything, it isn't a hydrino.
I glanced through his stuff, but it basically looks like complete nonsense. He rejects quantum and then uses results from quantum, and just as you described, he has no consistent theory to tie it together. Much of what he does is inconsistent and baseless.
It doesn't help that his mathematics is so terribly flawed that sometimes I don't even understand what he is claiming. A big part of the problem seems to be that his terminology is often at odds with what is commonly used in mathematics.
Of course, it depends on what you mean by quantum. Schrodingers equation does a very poor job with the ground state of Helium.Simply false, please stop making things up.
HF methods amount to curve fitting with many arbitrary basis functions.The solutions to the Schrodinger equation generally can't be written in elementary functions, so scientists use approximate methods to do some analysis, but this has no bearing on the actual solution.
Mills model does describe simple systems correct.Mills claims the electrons live on fixed radius spheres. The data shows this is untrue. The pictures that you attached do not seem consistent with his claims, but do seem consistent with standard quantum. This is where it seems like he is making things up so badly that it is hard to see how he could do so without realizing that his statements are straight up false. This is why people start thinking about words like "fraud."
The image paper doesn't resolve anything. Mills model has the same complex patterns projected on the bubble which would show up by microscopy techniques. Mills shows the same thing. Even if you considered Mills model as just an 'engineering' model, it still would be useful.
Mills is hard. It takes more than glancing.See what as58 said. Mills' theory is basically a bunch of non-sequiters, it isn't worth more than a glance.
If the SunCell is developed and deployed, that should convince you Mills did discover something real even if you don't like his math.And that something would still almost certainly not be the hydrino.
P.S. It's not Mills theory, but classical physics can now reproduce those weird 'quantum' phenomenon including tunneling and double slit experiments and even quantum orbital patterns. Nature may indeed be deterministic and not probabilistic at its core. Electrons may indeed be small classical systems as Mills believes.You seem to entirely misunderstand everything you just referred to. Analogous classical systems help make the quantum seem less weird to human intuition, but don't make quantum be equivalent to classical. Whether quantum is deterministic or probabilistic is undetermined, but phenomena like entanglement, which is clearly demonstrated in tests of Bell's inequality, show that quantum effects are very real in a way no classical theory could describe.
Of course, it depends on what you mean by quantum. Schrodingers equation does a very poor job with the ground state of Helium.Simply false, please stop making things up.HF methods amount to curve fitting with many arbitrary basis functions.The solutions to the Schrodinger equation generally can't be written in elementary functions, so scientists use approximate methods to do some analysis, but this has no bearing on the actual solution.Mills model does describe simple systems correct.Mills claims the electrons live on fixed radius spheres. The data shows this is untrue. The pictures that you attached do not seem consistent with his claims, but do seem consistent with standard quantum. This is where it seems like he is making things up so badly that it is hard to see how he could do so without realizing that his statements are straight up false. This is why people start thinking about words like "fraud."
The image paper doesn't resolve anything. Mills model has the same complex patterns projected on the bubble which would show up by microscopy techniques. Mills shows the same thing. Even if you considered Mills model as just an 'engineering' model, it still would be useful.Mills is hard. It takes more than glancing.See what as58 said. Mills' theory is basically a bunch of non-sequiters, it isn't worth more than a glance.If the SunCell is developed and deployed, that should convince you Mills did discover something real even if you don't like his math.And that something would still almost certainly not be the hydrino.P.S. It's not Mills theory, but classical physics can now reproduce those weird 'quantum' phenomenon including tunneling and double slit experiments and even quantum orbital patterns. Nature may indeed be deterministic and not probabilistic at its core. Electrons may indeed be small classical systems as Mills believes.You seem to entirely misunderstand everything you just referred to. Analogous classical systems help make the quantum seem less weird to human intuition, but don't make quantum be equivalent to classical. Whether quantum is deterministic or probabilistic is undetermined, but phenomena like entanglement, which is clearly demonstrated in tests of Bell's inequality, show that quantum effects are very real in a way no classical theory could describe.
It seems that Mills for some (philosophical?) reason doesn't like quantum mechanics and from his writing it's clear that he doesn't understand it either. So he postulates a sort of Bohr model which, however, goes to 1/137. That would impress even Tufnel. Too bad no-one except Mills and his associates has observed the fractional states.
Mills' theory checks virtually every box on crackpot checklist. His marketing, however, is second to none.
Mills' claims his model can explain all quantum effects including so-called entanglement.As we already covered, he doesn't actually have a model. This claim has no basis.
So no, I didn't misunderstand what I read. Mills isn't the only neo-Classicist. But of quantum theories, at least the deBroglie- Bohm version of is based in reality.Not relevant, and deBroglie-Bohm is quantum, not classical, it has particles as waves, discrete states and follows the Schrodinger equation. In fact as far as I know, there is no known experimentally determinable difference from probabilistic interpretations.
Regarding the issue of computing, one can make errors small with wavefunctions made of dozens of parameters that you make up but it's a mathematically absurd wavefunction that takes enormous work to compute. Mills can get close on one page with exact functions which indicates he may have a better model. They are all models.How much work it takes to compute is irrelevant. When you go to the Schrodinger equation, there aren't dozens of parameters, and it is not mathematically absurd. You might as well complain about how may terms an expansion needs to accurately represent pi. Mills can't do what you said, because he doesn't derive anything, he has no model from which to do so.
Regarding the previous discussion on the classical wave equation and the demand that Mills solutions pop out of it, it occurred to me that in thinking of the physics of bubbles, soap bubbles exist, surface waves can exist on the bubbles which are the solution to the classical wave equation yet we don't demand the bubble pop out of the classical wave equation, we construct the bubble by other means, a balance between pressure and tension exactly as Mills has done.So many things wrong with that...
Would your world explode if major scientists confirmed it was hydrino's?Would yours if Mills admitted that he has no theory or real evidence for hydrinos?
It doesn't matter what you think, I know that Mills either doesn't understand quantum or is straight up lying in his book.It seems that Mills for some (philosophical?) reason doesn't like quantum mechanics and from his writing it's clear that he doesn't understand it either. So he postulates a sort of Bohr model which, however, goes to 1/137. That would impress even Tufnel. Too bad no-one except Mills and his associates has observed the fractional states.
Mills' theory checks virtually every box on crackpot checklist. His marketing, however, is second to none.
He doesn't like it because he figured out that he could solve the atom classically. There is no crackpot checklist that has any merit. I think Mills understands QM and everything else far far more that you think. It's not a Bohr model.
There is no crackpot checklist that has any merit.
There is no crackpot checklist that has any merit.
The version of the two slit experiment that really puts the final nail in the coffin of any attempt to explain it with a non-quantum theory is the one where a laser is set up to cross both slits and measure when the electron goes through. If the wavelength of the laser is such that it's possible to tell which slit the electron went through, the diffraction pattern disappears, but if the wavelength of the laser is such that it's not possible to tell which slit the electron went through, the diffraction pattern reappears. It's really, really hard to explain that one without concluding that the diffraction pattern is intrinsically linked with whether or not the information about which slit it went through is being captured.
It doesn't matter what you think, I know that Mills either doesn't understand quantum or is straight up lying in his book.It seems that Mills for some (philosophical?) reason doesn't like quantum mechanics and from his writing it's clear that he doesn't understand it either. So he postulates a sort of Bohr model which, however, goes to 1/137. That would impress even Tufnel. Too bad no-one except Mills and his associates has observed the fractional states.
Mills' theory checks virtually every box on crackpot checklist. His marketing, however, is second to none.
He doesn't like it because he figured out that he could solve the atom classically. There is no crackpot checklist that has any merit. I think Mills understands QM and everything else far far more that you think. It's not a Bohr model.
He has a full page of "issues" with quantum mechanics that can at best be described as ignorant. The simplest is where he complains about Lorentz invariance, when Schrodinger's equation has always been the non-relativistic limit, and we have versions that are compatible with special relativity. Responding to most of the rest require actually explaining QM, which would be hard enough even in a better medium and if you were willing to listen.
Edit: typos
Holy crap on a cracker! I had heard of blacklight power but had never really looked into it. That book is a mass of twisted crap.
Did anyone read his take on the Aspect experiments? I am stupider for having read it and my computer has lost 100mhz of speed just from showing it to me. The whole book seems to be sections of distorted science embedded in walls of text. According to Wiki some of that text is simply plagiarized from various physics books. I guess it had to be self published because no publisher would touch it.
The combination of plagiarism and the specific way the science is distorted make me think fraud rather than self deception. If so then his book is really a work of art that has earned him tens of millions. But maybe the best con men are able to become true believers. If the corruption goes deep enough there may be no useful difference between a con and self deception.
The plagiarism was pointed out some time ago. I wonder if it has been removed. If it has ok but if not... those are some pretty big brass ones.
Did you read about the twin paradox? Apparently absolute frames do exist but each particle has its own absolute frame that depends on what frame it was created in. So two particles apparently motionless with respect to each other can have vastly different kinetic energy. And apparently this is proved by the fact that quasars have no time dilation.
Man this stuff is comedy gold. Forget hydrinos. They are the least wrong and least interesting thing in the book. And least funny.
http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/theory/GUT-CP-2016-Ed-Volume1-Web.pdf
At page 281 and onwards, Mills says he explains electron interference by his theory. I read the explanation very carefully. For a second, allow any "weird" explanations, however different they may be from mainstream theory. Electrons as flat flying membranes and all that.
Something important is missing in that wall of text.
He does not explain why it is impossible to prevent diffraction pattern from appearing by shooting electrons one at a time, and keeping their momentum and direction exactly the same.
Think about this. Generally, he claims that quantum physics is bogus, there is no Heisenberg principle, etc. Basically, he claims that classical physics is valid on all scales. But if that would be true, shooting electrons with exactly the same parameters at two slits must be possible. And since in classical physics repeated experiments with fixed starting conditions must give the same result every time, then every electron must hit the screen in exactly the same spot. No interference pattern should appear.
(In real experiments, it is not possible to maintain _exactly_ the same conditions - but you can approximate it. Pumping out air, using purer materials, cooling the apparatus to near zero kelvins, etc. As you reduce variability, the spread of electrons hitting the screen should quickly decrease).
That's historically where classical physics failed, and after a lot of head scratching QM was born. If "QM is bogus", then he needs to give an alternative explanation why diffraction pattern appears.
He simply *does not do that*! The wall of text is probably the method to hide this fact.
http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/theory/GUT-CP-2016-Ed-Volume3-Web.pdf
Page 1540: special relativity is invalid because... energy is not a conserved quantity when you change to a different reference frame! LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL :D
That was one of the ones linked , and go read # 8 again, it doesn't say "Einstein."There is no crackpot checklist that has any merit.
Summarily dismissing all crackpot checklists should itself surely be an item on a crackpot checklist. :-)
The lists I've seen are tongue in cheek. For instance, one said if Einstein is even mentioned, that means the person is a crackpot.
The major complaint is that it violates experiments that confirm quantum effects. None of what you said indicates comprehension of my post, let alone quantum, and if you think Mill's complaints about quantum are in any way valid, you don't understand quantum. It is notable that you didn't bother answering my simple takedown of one of his complaints.It doesn't matter what you think, I know that Mills either doesn't understand quantum or is straight up lying in his book.
He has a full page of "issues" with quantum mechanics that can at best be described as ignorant. The simplest is where he complains about Lorentz invariance, when Schrodinger's equation has always been the non-relativistic limit, and we have versions that are compatible with special relativity. Responding to most of the rest require actually explaining QM, which would be hard enough even in a better medium and if you were willing to listen.
Edit: typos
Mills' points remains valid. You presume I don't comprehend QM but I was a physics graduate student so I have studied it. The bigger point is that explaining QM doesn't negate Mills' theory because it's simple not QM. "It violates quantum mechanics!" is not a valid criticism. It's designed to do just. That. It's a neo-classical model.
Wiki is hopelessly out of date and willfully hostile, deleting any confirming data or papers while highlighting all the criticisms. The editors of Wiki should be sued for bias.Outright false statements. It has been well established in this thread that there are no confirming data or papers for them to delete, or you would have shared them already.
Even if Mills was wrong, wiki is not a credible or fair source of information.Which is why you look at the sources.
But the evidence shows he's right about hydrino's and his atomic model works very well. I listed as proof the Helium excited states which Mills solves, about 100 states, in closed form with analytic expressions derived from his model all within a fraction of a percent error.You have claimed he has done so, but provided no evidence. Is it buried somewhere in that book?
There are a lot of people who detest the idea because it would mean so many cherished concepts are wrong. Such an anti-science attitude.No, they detest the idea, because as evidenced by the ridiculous number of blatantly wrong statements in Mills' book, it might be one of the most anti-science things ever written.
Read the last part of gospacex's post again. The problem is that despite the wall of text, he never actually offers an alternative explanation.That's historically where classical physics failed, and after a lot of head scratching QM was born. If "QM is bogus", then he needs to give an alternative explanation why diffraction pattern appears.
He simply *does not do that*! The wall of text is probably the method to hide this fact.
Classical explanations at the time failed, but classical physics doesn't fail as Mills has shown 100 years too late. Mills believes everything we call quantum is real but explainable with a model valid on all scales and classically based. He isn't denying the reality of what we discovered and call quantum phenomenon at all.
That is the point. Mills tries to use that fact as an argument against relativity, which is silly, especially considering it isn't conserved classically either.http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/theory/GUT-CP-2016-Ed-Volume3-Web.pdf
Page 1540: special relativity is invalid because... energy is not a conserved quantity when you change to a different reference frame! LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL :D
Kinetic energy isn't a conserved quantity between reference frames.
"Which is why you look at the sources."That was one of the ones linked , and go read # 8 again, it doesn't say "Einstein."There is no crackpot checklist that has any merit.
Summarily dismissing all crackpot checklists should itself surely be an item on a crackpot checklist. :-)
The lists I've seen are tongue in cheek. For instance, one said if Einstein is even mentioned, that means the person is a crackpot.The major complaint is that it violates experiments that confirm quantum effects. None of what you said indicates comprehension of my post, let alone quantum, and if you think Mill's complaints about quantum are in any way valid, you don't understand quantum. It is notable that you didn't bother answering my simple takedown of one of his complaints.It doesn't matter what you think, I know that Mills either doesn't understand quantum or is straight up lying in his book.
He has a full page of "issues" with quantum mechanics that can at best be described as ignorant. The simplest is where he complains about Lorentz invariance, when Schrodinger's equation has always been the non-relativistic limit, and we have versions that are compatible with special relativity. Responding to most of the rest require actually explaining QM, which would be hard enough even in a better medium and if you were willing to listen.
Edit: typos
Mills' points remains valid. You presume I don't comprehend QM but I was a physics graduate student so I have studied it. The bigger point is that explaining QM doesn't negate Mills' theory because it's simple not QM. "It violates quantum mechanics!" is not a valid criticism. It's designed to do just. That. It's a neo-classical model.Wiki is hopelessly out of date and willfully hostile, deleting any confirming data or papers while highlighting all the criticisms. The editors of Wiki should be sued for bias.Outright false statements. It has been well established in this thread that there are no confirming data or papers for them to delete, or you would have shared them already.Even if Mills was wrong, wiki is not a credible or fair source of information.Which is why you look at the sources.But the evidence shows he's right about hydrino's and his atomic model works very well. I listed as proof the Helium excited states which Mills solves, about 100 states, in closed form with analytic expressions derived from his model all within a fraction of a percent error.You have claimed he has done so, but provided no evidence. Is it buried somewhere in that book?There are a lot of people who detest the idea because it would mean so many cherished concepts are wrong. Such an anti-science attitude.No, they detest the idea, because as evidenced by the ridiculous number of blatantly wrong statements in Mills' book, it might be one of the most anti-science things ever written.Read the last part of gospacex's post again. The problem is that despite the wall of text, he never actually offers an alternative explanation.That's historically where classical physics failed, and after a lot of head scratching QM was born. If "QM is bogus", then he needs to give an alternative explanation why diffraction pattern appears.
He simply *does not do that*! The wall of text is probably the method to hide this fact.
Classical explanations at the time failed, but classical physics doesn't fail as Mills has shown 100 years too late. Mills believes everything we call quantum is real but explainable with a model valid on all scales and classically based. He isn't denying the reality of what we discovered and call quantum phenomenon at all.That is the point. Mills tries to use that fact as an argument against relativity, which is silly, especially considering it isn't conserved classically either.http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/theory/GUT-CP-2016-Ed-Volume3-Web.pdf
Page 1540: special relativity is invalid because... energy is not a conserved quantity when you change to a different reference frame! LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL :D
Kinetic energy isn't a conserved quantity between reference frames.
Edit: ironic typo in Einstein.
"Which is why you look at the sources."Good job finding the least relevant statement in my entire post to respond to.
Mills published a peer reviewed article in a major European journal in around 2011. The wiki site will not allow that reference to be listed. People put it up yet it disappears quickly. Why? Is it normal for a wiki page on a major topic to only allow references by critics and not references to the actual work?
http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/theory/GUT-CP-2016-Ed-Volume1-Web.pdf
At page 281 and onwards, Mills says he explains electron interference by his theory. I read the explanation very carefully. For a second, allow any "weird" explanations, however different they may be from mainstream theory. Electrons as flat flying membranes and all that.
Something important is missing in that wall of text.
He does not explain why it is impossible to prevent diffraction pattern from appearing by shooting electrons one at a time, and keeping their momentum and direction exactly the same.
Think about this. Generally, he claims that quantum physics is bogus, there is no Heisenberg principle, etc. Basically, he claims that classical physics is valid on all scales. But if that would be true, shooting electrons with exactly the same parameters at two slits must be possible. And since in classical physics repeated experiments with fixed starting conditions must give the same result every time, then every electron must hit the screen in exactly the same spot. No interference pattern should appear.
(In real experiments, it is not possible to maintain _exactly_ the same conditions - but you can approximate it. Pumping out air, using purer materials, cooling the apparatus to near zero kelvins, etc. As you reduce variability, the spread of electrons hitting the screen should quickly decrease).
That's historically where classical physics failed, and after a lot of head scratching QM was born. If "QM is bogus", then he needs to give an alternative explanation why diffraction pattern appears.
He simply *does not do that*! The wall of text is probably the method to hide this fact.
Classical explanations at the time failed, but classical physics doesn't fail as Mills has shown 100 years too late. Mills believes everything we call quantum is real but explainable with a model valid on all scales and classically based.
http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/theory/GUT-CP-2016-Ed-Volume1-Web.pdf
At page 281 and onwards, Mills says he explains electron interference by his theory. I read the explanation very carefully. For a second, allow any "weird" explanations, however different they may be from mainstream theory. Electrons as flat flying membranes and all that.
Something important is missing in that wall of text.
He does not explain why it is impossible to prevent diffraction pattern from appearing by shooting electrons one at a time, and keeping their momentum and direction exactly the same.
Think about this. Generally, he claims that quantum physics is bogus, there is no Heisenberg principle, etc. Basically, he claims that classical physics is valid on all scales. But if that would be true, shooting electrons with exactly the same parameters at two slits must be possible. And since in classical physics repeated experiments with fixed starting conditions must give the same result every time, then every electron must hit the screen in exactly the same spot. No interference pattern should appear.
(In real experiments, it is not possible to maintain _exactly_ the same conditions - but you can approximate it. Pumping out air, using purer materials, cooling the apparatus to near zero kelvins, etc. As you reduce variability, the spread of electrons hitting the screen should quickly decrease).
That's historically where classical physics failed, and after a lot of head scratching QM was born. If "QM is bogus", then he needs to give an alternative explanation why diffraction pattern appears.
He simply *does not do that*! The wall of text is probably the method to hide this fact.
Classical explanations at the time failed, but classical physics doesn't fail as Mills has shown 100 years too late. Mills believes everything we call quantum is real but explainable with a model valid on all scales and classically based.
Double slit experiment is one of the experiments which lead to creation of QM. Contemporary theories couldn't explain it. QM wasn't born on a whim - it was created because this experiment (and a few others) was not explainable by what we had before.
If someone wants to propose an alternative theory (which by itself is not a wrong thing to do), then this person must give a satisfactory explanation of observed results of double slit experiment.
Specifically, the version of the experiment where electrons with fixed energy and momentum are shot at double slit, _one at a time_. The observed behavior is that diffraction pattern appears, and it is not reduced by increasingly stringent efforts to maintain the same energy and momentum of the electrons.
Same should be done of several other early 20 century experiments which also lead to QM, such as triple Stern-Gerlach (which demonstrates that spin components along different axes do not have simultaneously definite values) - they all should be explained. If this is not done, then this "new theory" is demonstrably worse than QM.
Mills does that in chapter 8 volume 1 of his tome.gospacex read that section, and found no explanation.
Over time, the electron beam statistically produces a uniform distribution across the slits. (Here, the statistics are deterministic and local/causal unlike the quantum mechanical case.)There are many problems with what he writes in that section, but this one is notable for directly contradicting the experiment setup.
QuoteOver time, the electron beam statistically produces a uniform distribution across the slits. (Here, the statistics are deterministic and local/causal unlike the quantum mechanical case.)There are many problems with what he writes in that section, but this one is notable for directly contradicting the experiment setup.
Also, he claims that the underlying physics is deterministic, but does not state where the randomness comes from that is evident in the experiment.
"Radiation reaction and energy-momentum conservation"
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.2846.pdf
The purpose of this lecture was to discuss some subtle points associated with interpretation of the radiation reaction force. We have shown that the Lorentz-Dirac equation in classical electrodynamics describes the balance of three and not just two momenta: the mechanical momentum of the particle, the momentum of emitted radiation, and the momentum carried by the electromagnetic field bound to the charge. The total momentum is conserved, but this does not imply an instantaneous balance of the emitted momentum and that of the particle.
But why does it NEED to be there? Why can't there just be a better focused electron beam? Also, he talks about a "uniform distribution", when something like a gaussian would make sense.QuoteOver time, the electron beam statistically produces a uniform distribution across the slits. (Here, the statistics are deterministic and local/causal unlike the quantum mechanical case.)There are many problems with what he writes in that section, but this one is notable for directly contradicting the experiment setup.
Also, he claims that the underlying physics is deterministic, but does not state where the randomness comes from that is evident in the experiment.
If you have slight variations of the incoming trajectory of the particle, then you should expect slight variations in its outgoing trajectory. The randomness not only comes from the not-so-precise source of electrons, it also comes the not-so-stationary surfaces of atoms on the slit that are incessantly jiggling. We can see randomness of the former-kind with Plinko chips falling through an array of pegs on the Price is Right.
It is the most obvious source of randomness that one can hardly be blamed for not mentioning.
Mills' approach to the double-split experiment is "realist" in the sense that there is both a particle (electron) and a wave (electromagnetic field), but one is not the other. It is similar in spirit to the justification of Bohmian mechanics over the Copenhagen interpretation....So basically, he shoves all of the quantum weirdness onto the photon, pretends that makes it less weird, and then hand waves that the electron follows the photon wave path.
....(while being quite different to both). In the case for Mills' model, the electron induces images on the slits, generating electromagnetic waves which then guide the electron, analogous to the otherwise very different theory of Bohm. Meanwhile, Bohmian mechanics advocates have trouble reconciling it with relativity.
Mills rejects some aspects of relativity (https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SocietyforClassicalPhysics/conversations/messages/12653) on experimental grounds (https://phys.org/news/2010-04-discovery-quasars-dont-dilation-mystifies.html). How? He speaks of a "particle production frame" for each particle. Furthermore, He claims that this can explain the quasar anomaly where newly-furnished particles near quasars are anomalously less time-dilated. Since the particles are newly-furnished when they are already inside the gravitational well, then they would not exhibit major overall time-dilation when compared to a particle that entered in the well from the outside. The reason? The latter would have accelerated greatly relative to its "particle production frame" and therefore subject to greater time dilation - not so much the former.That sounds great until you realize that the quasars are red shifted as expected, it is the periodicity of their brightness variations that is inconsistent. Even if there were no other issues with Mills' proposal, it is if anything worse at explaining the observed quasar behavior.
Mills' model is like a ship with multiple water-tight compartments. The question isn't if the hull is breached or not. The question is whether enough compartments are breached to sink the ship. To me, the ship still floats, albeit a bit rocky on some decks. It's good enough to stand on, but it might need to be anchored so that too much water isn't spilled over it.As far as model and theory goes, it seems proper at this point to compare Mills' work to the current state of the Titanic. There is nothing left to be worth salvaging, Although going through the details of why it is wrong in some parts may be instructive.
Let's test the "amazing" predictions of particle masses. The mm/me prediction is from page 3.
#!/usr/bin/python
from math import pi
# Data from PDG 2017:
a=0.0072973525664 # two last digits are +-17
mm=105.6583745 #+-0.0000024 MeV
me=0.5109989461 #+-0.0000000031 MeV
# Mills prediction formula for ratio of muon to electron mass:
print (a**-2 / (2*pi))**(2.0/3) * (1 + 2*pi * a**2 / 2) / (1 + a/2)
# Experimental value:
print mm/me
"a" is the fine structure constant.
The above prints:
206.768279756
206.768282609
Looks good, eh? Well, the difference is in 8th significant digit, but PDG data error bars are such that the values have 9-10 significant digits. Thus, prediction is more than 3-sigma off.
Look at the formula. Multiplicands like (1+N*a) can be used to "tweak" the value by about N% up, to tweak it down use (1-N*a) or use division instead of multiplication. Multiplicands of the form (1+N*a^2) tweak by much smaller amount, ~N*0.005%. To make it look more scientific, use N=2*pi instead of N=6 etc.
So, start by choosing suitable approximate expression with a, pi, some powers. Then add "tweaking" multiplications until you arrive at a "prediction" which "matches" experimental data. His formula with two "tweaks" was good for 1998 data. I bet an "updated" formula will be used to better match 2017 data :D
The sections titled:
e: "THE ELECTRON-ANTIELECTRON LEPTON PAIR"
mu: "THE MUON-ANTIMUON PAIR"
tau: "THE TAU-ANTITAU PAIR"
....have content which cannot fully be explained in the relatively short space which I devote to my comment here, so I will select the key sentences which I believe provides the best distinction between the approaches to predicting their different masses.
e:
"Thus, the special relativistic corrections to r_g [gravitational radius] are the same[Emphasis] as those for the transition state radius which gives the energy of the particle equal to its mass times the speed of light squared as given by Eqs. (32.32a-32.32b)."
"In the lab frame, the relativistic correction of the [transition state] radius in the derivation of the Planck's equation for the transition state orbitsphere (Eq. (29.12)) is alpha^(-2)."
mu:
"In this case, the special relativistic corrections to r_g [gravitational radius] are the inverse[Emphasis] of those of the radius of the transition state orbitsphere, which gives the energy of the particle equal to its mass times the speed of light squared as given by Eqs. (32.32a-32.32b)."
"For the lab inertial frame, the relativistic correction of the radius of the transition state orbitsphere given by the potential energy equations (Eq. (29.10) and (29.11)) is alpha^(-2)."
"For the electron inertial frame, the relativistic correction of the gravitational radius relative to the proper frame is the inverse[Emphasis], alpha^2"
"Furthermore, the potential energy equation gives an electrostatic energy; thus, the electron inertial time must be corrected by the relativistic factor of 2*pi relative to the proper time."
tau:
"For the lab inertial frame, the relativistic correction of the radius of the transition state orbitsphere given by the magnetic energy equations (Eq. (29.14) and (29.15)) is 1/((2*pi)^2*alpha^4)."
"For the electron inertial frame, the relativistic correction of the gravitational radius relative to the proper frame is the inverse[Emphasis], (2*pi)^2*alpha^4."
"Furthermore, the transition state comprises two magnetic moments. For v=c, the magnetic energy equals, the potential energy, equals the Planck equation energy, equals mc^2."
"Thus, the electron [inertial] time is corrected by a factor of two relative to the proper time."
Mills' approach to the double-split experiment is "realist" in the sense that there is both a particle (electron) and a wave (electromagnetic field), but one is not the other. It is similar in spirit to the justification of Bohmian mechanics over the Copenhagen interpretation....So basically, he shoves all of the quantum weirdness onto the photon, pretends that makes it less weird, and then hand waves that the electron follows the photon wave path.
....(while being quite different to both). In the case for Mills' model, the electron induces images on the slits, generating electromagnetic waves which then guide the electron, analogous to the otherwise very different theory of Bohm. Meanwhile, Bohmian mechanics advocates have trouble reconciling it with relativity.
But this just sounds like another interpretation of quantum, when he supposedly rejects quantum. If it was formally written out, it would basically be a local hidden variable theory, which has been solidly disproven by tests of Bells' inequality.
QuoteOver time, the electron beam statistically produces a uniform distribution across the slits. (Here, the statistics are deterministic and local/causal unlike the quantum mechanical case.)There are many problems with what he writes in that section, but this one is notable for directly contradicting the experiment setup.
Also, he claims that the underlying physics is deterministic, but does not state where the randomness comes from that is evident in the experiment.
If you have slight variations of the incoming trajectory of the particle, then you should expect slight variations in its outgoing trajectory. The randomness not only comes from the not-so-precise source of electrons, it also comes the not-so-stationary surfaces of atoms on the slit that are incessantly jiggling.
None of these concerns with lepton mass ratios are in anyway essential to his treatment of molecules or his "hydrinos".They have quite a bit to do with the consistency of his theory, and whether it is better than standard quantum.
The electron in Mills' model isn't "local" because it is a distributed particle (charge membrane), not a point charge.Not clear that means a non-local theory, it would be local as long as the shape is allowed to distort when under acceleration. Some experiments have used distances measured in miles anyway, subatomic non-locality isn't good enough. Also, entire classes of "realist" non-local theories have been ruled out as well. See here. (https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529)
The electron in Mills' model isn't "local" because it is a distributed particle (charge membrane), not a point charge.
None of these concerns with lepton mass ratios are in anyway essential to his treatment of molecules or his "hydrinos".They have quite a bit to do with the consistency of his theory, and whether it is better than standard quantum.
The electron in Mills' model isn't "local" because it is a distributed particle (charge membrane), not a point charge.Not clear that means a non-local theory, it would be local as long as the shape is allowed to distort when under acceleration. Some experiments have used distances measured in miles anyway, subatomic non-locality isn't good enough. Also, entire classes of "realist" non-local theories have been ruled out as well. See here. (https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529)
Not sure what the relevance or point of the rest of your post is.
It is hard to figure out what central proposition(s) Mills' theory has, if it has any at all. He refers to it as a unified theory, in other words it should be able to explain at least as much as standard physics can, and if it can't it is demonstrably worse than modern physics.None of these concerns with lepton mass ratios are in anyway essential to his treatment of molecules or his "hydrinos".They have quite a bit to do with the consistency of his theory, and whether it is better than standard quantum.
A theory can be broken down into its propositions. Depending on how they are connected, invalidation of one branch need not affect the whole.
The divergence of the electric field is tied in with the definition of charge via Gauss' law. Conventionally it is thought that a divergent electic field cannot exist in a "vacuum" in classical theory, though this would be possible in Quantum theory due to the uncertainty principle. However, those four things I mentioned you did not quote suggest that speaking of divergent electric fields in "vacuum" is not out of the question for a neo-classical theory. This would imply a "non-local" wavefunction composed of variations of the "charge density", particularly with the last example I gave with the oscillating electric quadrupole.Again, does this have anything to do with hydrinos or Mills' theory?
Let's test the "amazing" predictions of particle masses. The mm/me prediction is from page 3.
#!/usr/bin/python
from math import pi
# Data from PDG 2017:
a=0.0072973525664 # two last digits are +-17
mm=105.6583745 #+-0.0000024 MeV
me=0.5109989461 #+-0.0000000031 MeV
# Mills prediction formula for ratio of muon to electron mass:
print (a**-2 / (2*pi))**(2.0/3) * (1 + 2*pi * a**2 / 2) / (1 + a/2)
# Experimental value:
print mm/me
"a" is the fine structure constant.
The above prints:
206.768279756
206.768282609
Looks good, eh? Well, the difference is in 8th significant digit, but PDG data error bars are such that the values have 9-10 significant digits. Thus, prediction is more than 3-sigma off.
Look at the formula. Multiplicands like (1+N*a) can be used to "tweak" the value by about N% up, to tweak it down use (1-N*a) or use division instead of multiplication. Multiplicands of the form (1+N*a^2) tweak by much smaller amount, ~N*0.005%. To make it look more scientific, use N=2*pi instead of N=6 etc.
So, start by choosing suitable approximate expression with a, pi, some powers. Then add "tweaking" multiplications until you arrive at a "prediction" which "matches" experimental data. His formula with two "tweaks" was good for 1998 data. I bet an "updated" formula will be used to better match 2017 data :D
That is easy: mm/me. Good to infinity decimal places (though our knowledge of the parameters limits this). Most of the free parameters in the standard model are masses of the fundamental particles. This ratio is just 2 parameters.Let's test the "amazing" predictions of particle masses. The mm/me prediction is from page 3.
#!/usr/bin/python
from math import pi
# Data from PDG 2017:
a=0.0072973525664 # two last digits are +-17
mm=105.6583745 #+-0.0000024 MeV
me=0.5109989461 #+-0.0000000031 MeV
# Mills prediction formula for ratio of muon to electron mass:
print (a**-2 / (2*pi))**(2.0/3) * (1 + 2*pi * a**2 / 2) / (1 + a/2)
# Experimental value:
print mm/me
"a" is the fine structure constant.
The above prints:
206.768279756
206.768282609
Looks good, eh? Well, the difference is in 8th significant digit, but PDG data error bars are such that the values have 9-10 significant digits. Thus, prediction is more than 3-sigma off.
Look at the formula. Multiplicands like (1+N*a) can be used to "tweak" the value by about N% up, to tweak it down use (1-N*a) or use division instead of multiplication. Multiplicands of the form (1+N*a^2) tweak by much smaller amount, ~N*0.005%. To make it look more scientific, use N=2*pi instead of N=6 etc.
So, start by choosing suitable approximate expression with a, pi, some powers. Then add "tweaking" multiplications until you arrive at a "prediction" which "matches" experimental data. His formula with two "tweaks" was good for 1998 data. I bet an "updated" formula will be used to better match 2017 data :D
Show me the standard model calculation in simple closed analytic form accurate to 9-10 places. 8 significant digits is good for a closed form analytical expression. The experiment may be 9-10 significant figures but you have to compute the error bars in all the constants in the expression to compare Mills formula. Mills claims his number is within the propagated error bars using the known constants. I have no reason to believe Mills just fiddled with the formula as you suggest to make it close. How many adjustable 'free' parameters are in the Standard Model? Isn't it 19 or 20 which are tuned by experiments?
That is easy: mm/me. Good to infinity decimal places (though our knowledge of the parameters limits this). Most of the free parameters in the standard model are masses of the fundamental particles. This ratio is just 2 parameters.Let's test the "amazing" predictions of particle masses. The mm/me prediction is from page 3.
#!/usr/bin/python
from math import pi
# Data from PDG 2017:
a=0.0072973525664 # two last digits are +-17
mm=105.6583745 #+-0.0000024 MeV
me=0.5109989461 #+-0.0000000031 MeV
# Mills prediction formula for ratio of muon to electron mass:
print (a**-2 / (2*pi))**(2.0/3) * (1 + 2*pi * a**2 / 2) / (1 + a/2)
# Experimental value:
print mm/me
"a" is the fine structure constant.
The above prints:
206.768279756
206.768282609
Looks good, eh? Well, the difference is in 8th significant digit, but PDG data error bars are such that the values have 9-10 significant digits. Thus, prediction is more than 3-sigma off.
Look at the formula. Multiplicands like (1+N*a) can be used to "tweak" the value by about N% up, to tweak it down use (1-N*a) or use division instead of multiplication. Multiplicands of the form (1+N*a^2) tweak by much smaller amount, ~N*0.005%. To make it look more scientific, use N=2*pi instead of N=6 etc.
So, start by choosing suitable approximate expression with a, pi, some powers. Then add "tweaking" multiplications until you arrive at a "prediction" which "matches" experimental data. His formula with two "tweaks" was good for 1998 data. I bet an "updated" formula will be used to better match 2017 data :D
Show me the standard model calculation in simple closed analytic form accurate to 9-10 places. 8 significant digits is good for a closed form analytical expression. The experiment may be 9-10 significant figures but you have to compute the error bars in all the constants in the expression to compare Mills formula. Mills claims his number is within the propagated error bars using the known constants. I have no reason to believe Mills just fiddled with the formula as you suggest to make it close. How many adjustable 'free' parameters are in the Standard Model? Isn't it 19 or 20 which are tuned by experiments?
How many free parameters went into Mills' equation? If it was a predictive formula, there would be a more general equation that it is derived from. Unless such an equation is provided, fiddling with the formula seems to be a likely explanation of how it was created. If asked, I am sure Mills could provide some justification along the lines of "raise it to the 2/3 power to account for the area to volume ratio, then multiply by 0.5 because only the near half contributes..." But this is gibberish, not a derivation, and each arbitrary step is basically a free parameter.
Also wrong is wrong. His equation does not match reality, and changing it to make it match would just be more free parameters.
It is hard to figure out what central proposition(s) Mills' theory has, if it has any at all. He refers to it as a unified theory, in other words it should be able to explain at least as much as standard physics can, and if it can't it is demonstrably worse than modern physics.None of these concerns with lepton mass ratios are in anyway essential to his treatment of molecules or his "hydrinos".They have quite a bit to do with the consistency of his theory, and whether it is better than standard quantum.
A theory can be broken down into its propositions. Depending on how they are connected, invalidation of one branch need not affect the whole.
That statement is already central to the rest of physics as well. It doesn't differentiate his theory in any way. (Mills claims that quantum violates this and that there is some experiment that proves it. This is particularly strange because what kind of experiment could prove that quantum theory doesn't reduce to classical physics results in the limit of large numbers? This is a question of whether the theories are mathematically consistent within certain limits.)It is hard to figure out what central proposition(s) Mills' theory has, if it has any at all. He refers to it as a unified theory, in other words it should be able to explain at least as much as standard physics can, and if it can't it is demonstrably worse than modern physics.None of these concerns with lepton mass ratios are in anyway essential to his treatment of molecules or his "hydrinos".They have quite a bit to do with the consistency of his theory, and whether it is better than standard quantum.
A theory can be broken down into its propositions. Depending on how they are connected, invalidation of one branch need not affect the whole.
I don't think it's that hard. The central proposition is that physical laws apply on all scales from quarks to the cosmos.
Specific to the atomic part, Mills derives the electron model from the non-radiation condition set out by one of his mentors, H. Haus at MIT.This is closer to being a central proposition, but I haven't seen a sufficiently formal statement of what this means, and how it would lead to some of his results.
That statement is already central to the rest of physics as well. It doesn't differentiate his theory in any way. (Mills claims that quantum violates this and that there is some experiment that proves it. This is particularly strange because what kind of experiment could prove that quantum theory doesn't reduce to classical physics results in the limit of large numbers? This is a question of whether the theories are mathematically consistent within certain limits.)It is hard to figure out what central proposition(s) Mills' theory has, if it has any at all. He refers to it as a unified theory, in other words it should be able to explain at least as much as standard physics can, and if it can't it is demonstrably worse than modern physics.None of these concerns with lepton mass ratios are in anyway essential to his treatment of molecules or his "hydrinos".They have quite a bit to do with the consistency of his theory, and whether it is better than standard quantum.
A theory can be broken down into its propositions. Depending on how they are connected, invalidation of one branch need not affect the whole.
I don't think it's that hard. The central proposition is that physical laws apply on all scales from quarks to the cosmos.Specific to the atomic part, Mills derives the electron model from the non-radiation condition set out by one of his mentors, H. Haus at MIT.This is closer to being a central proposition, but I haven't seen a sufficiently formal statement of what this means, and how it would lead to some of his results.
So let us ask ourselves the question Dr. Mills asked himself in 1986
But Maxwell's laws say a point source accelerating in an electric field must radiate energy. If the electron is a point orbiting the nucleus, like my 1U cubesat orbiting the earth, it must radiate its kinetic energy away and crash into the nucleus.
George Goedecke (1964) and Hermann Haus (1986) each determined that an extended distribution of charge can move in a field without radiating, if they meet certain conditions. Haus was one of Mills' professors at MIT and Mills had access to the paper showing these conditions.
So, what would an electron that obeyed Maxwell and conserved energy look like? Conservation of energy implies a constant orbital radius that changes only when energy is taken from or added to the system. Obeying Maxwell, in the context of Goedecke and Haus, implies an extended form, a ring not a moon, in the planetary analogy. And, to match experiment, it must be symmetrical about the nucleus. An extended, symmetric form at a constant radius around a point in space is a good definition of "sphere." Mills calls the bound electron an "orbitsphere."
For those getting lost in the forest of math and running into walls of text, the general thrust of Mills' theory is really quite simple: all elementary particles should always conserve energy and obey Maxwell's equations. The radius constraint on the Schrodinger equation doesn't have that result, but modeling the bound electron as a spherical membrane does.
If p-->0 as r-->infinity isn't a valid physical constraint on a gravitationally bound cubesat, is it any better for a electrically bound electron?You apparently don't even know what you just wrote. p->0 as r-> infinity for a cube sat means that the cubesat will not end up in the andromeda galaxy randomly. Rejecting this constraint guarantees that the satellite immediately ends up on the far side of the observable universe.
the general thrust of Mills' theory is really quite simple: all elementary particles should always conserve energy and obey Maxwell's equations.
It's comical how Mills repeats the mantra of non-radiation condition: "...that its spacetime Fourier transform does not possess components that are synchronous with waves traveling at the speed of light...", but he doesn't seem to have any idea about what it actually means.
Yeah, two things strike me about Mills theory.
First it is very broad. It would make fundamental changes from chemistry to high energy physics to cosmology. Second, his grasp of mainstream physics appears to be incredibly shallow. Lets look at one particular example. On page 1641 he wrote:
" Bell's theorem is a simple proof of statistical inequalities of expectation values of observables given that quantum statistics are correct and that the physical system possesses "hidden variables". Classical physics does not posses hidden variables. It is deterministic and hidden variables do not apply to it. "
Now this is so wrong it hurts.
First, Bell's theorem does not assume quantum statistics are correct. Bell's theorem need not even mention quantum mechanics because it isn't about quantum mechanics. Bell's theorem is about the limits that can be placed on any local realistic theory.
Second, Mills theory is classical and so it is exactly the type of theory that Bell's theorem places limits on.
And third, if Mills theory were a local realistic theory that could reproduce quantum experimental results it would be exactly the hidden variable theory Einstein was looking for. By uncovering the hydrino states Mills uncovered Einstein's hidden physics. Except Bell proved that no such theory can exist because it cannot violate Bell's inequality, a basic limitation on classical physical theories.
And finally, Mill's theory is deterministic and so hidden variables do not apply to it?!? Einstein proposed unseen physics exactly in order to reduce quantum mechanics to a deterministic theory. How much wrong can you stuff into three sentences?
This single quoted section of Mills' book removes any possibility that mills has a clue. The only remaining question is is he really that dunderheaded or is it fraud. Given the combination of breadth and shallowness I vote fraud. But more than that given the level of intellectual degradation he would need to achieve to actually believe this mess I think calling it fraud is giving him the benefit of the doubt.
the general thrust of Mills' theory is really quite simple: all elementary particles should always conserve energy and obey Maxwell's equations.
Yes, this is a simple and elegant hypothesis. This hypothesis was generally seen as likely by most of late 19th century scientists.
And then it ran into a brick wall: a bunch of new experiments probing properties of atoms and subatomic particles gave experimental results which could not be explained by this simple and elegant hypothesis.
Simple and elegant hypothesis which contradicts experiments is still a wrong hypothesis.
But Maxwell's laws say a point source accelerating in an electric field must radiate energy. If the electron is a point orbiting the nucleus, like my 1U cubesat orbiting the earth, it must radiate its kinetic energy away and crash into the nucleus.
George Goedecke (1964) and Hermann Haus (1986) each determined that an extended distribution of charge can move in a field without radiating, if they meet certain conditions. Haus was one of Mills' professors at MIT and Mills had access to the paper showing these conditions.
So, what would an electron that obeyed Maxwell and conserved energy look like? Conservation of energy implies a constant orbital radius that changes only when energy is taken from or added to the system. Obeying Maxwell, in the context of Goedecke and Haus, implies an extended form, a ring not a moon, in the planetary analogy. And, to match experiment, it must be symmetrical about the nucleus. An extended, symmetric form at a constant radius around a point in space is a good definition of "sphere." Mills calls the bound electron an "orbitsphere."
For those getting lost in the forest of math and running into walls of text, the general thrust of Mills' theory is really quite simple: all elementary particles should always conserve energy and obey Maxwell's equations. The radius constraint on the Schrodinger equation doesn't have that result, but modeling the bound electron as a spherical membrane does.
Quantum Theory says that Maxwell's equations are only part of the truth. They say there is a more complex truth and the Maxwell's equations are a special case of the more complex truth, a special case that covers the things we see at everyday scales. So Quantum Theory provides the same answers as Maxwell's equations for the situations where Maxwell's equations are seen to work while providing better answers for other situations.
So, this objection to Shrodinger's Equation is bogus. There's no need for a theory to match Maxwell's equations in circumstances where experimentation has shown the alternative matches experimental results better.
There may be good reasons to reject all or parts of Quantum Theory, but the reasons you have given are not good reasons.
Of all the things you just said, this demonstrates a complete lack of reading comprehension skills. The equation referred to does not link gravity and electromagnetism. It links the physical rotation rate of the Earth with the fine structure constant. Apparently the fine structure constant would change for the whole universe if an asteroid hit the Earth and made it rotate faster (according to Mills).So let us ask ourselves the question Dr. Mills asked himself in 1986
I have a better question to ask. If someone writes a formula where left side represents some physical parameters of Earth, and right side is.... inverse fine structure constant, and someone claims that this makes any sort of sense, where this person should be sent? A Physics 101 refresher course? Or Astrophysics 101? Assuming that rate of Earth's rotation is special and somehow linked to fundamental constants of the Universe is a pretty grave error, akin to Geocentrism.
So your saying there isn't a relationship between gravity and electromagnetism? Why then are physicists looking for a unified theory at all?
Yeah, two things strike me about Mills theory.
First it is very broad. It would make fundamental changes from chemistry to high energy physics to cosmology. Second, his grasp of mainstream physics appears to be incredibly shallow. Lets look at one particular example. On page 1641 he wrote:
" Bell's theorem is a simple proof of statistical inequalities of expectation values of observables given that quantum statistics are correct and that the physical system possesses "hidden variables". Classical physics does not posses hidden variables. It is deterministic and hidden variables do not apply to it. "
Now this is so wrong it hurts.
First, Bell's theorem does not assume quantum statistics are correct. Bell's theorem need not even mention quantum mechanics because it isn't about quantum mechanics. Bell's theorem is about the limits that can be placed on any local realistic theory.
Second, Mills theory is classical and so it is exactly the type of theory that Bell's theorem places limits on.
And third, if Mills theory were a local realistic theory that could reproduce quantum experimental results it would be exactly the hidden variable theory Einstein was looking for. By uncovering the hydrino states Mills uncovered Einstein's hidden physics. Except Bell proved that no such theory can exist because it cannot violate Bell's inequality, a basic limitation on classical physical theories.
And finally, Mill's theory is deterministic and so hidden variables do not apply to it?!? Einstein proposed unseen physics exactly in order to reduce quantum mechanics to a deterministic theory. How much wrong can you stuff into three sentences?
This single quoted section of Mills' book removes any possibility that mills has a clue. The only remaining question is is he really that dunderheaded or is it fraud. Given the combination of breadth and shallowness I vote fraud. But more than that given the level of intellectual degradation he would need to achieve to actually believe this mess I think calling it fraud is giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Since I'm not an expert on Bell's theorem I'd like to forward this to Mills and get his response. Is that ok?
Of all the things you just said, this demonstrates a complete lack of reading comprehension skills. The equation referred to does not link gravity and electromagnetism. It links the physical rotation rate of the Earth with the fine structure constant. Apparently the fine structure constant would change for the whole universe if an asteroid hit the Earth and made it rotate faster (according to Mills).
Maybe this rewording of gospacex's post will help you understand it.
This close identity may have played a role in choosing the number 86,400 in the definition of the second.
Of all the things you just said, this demonstrates a complete lack of reading comprehension skills. The equation referred to does not link gravity and electromagnetism. It links the physical rotation rate of the Earth with the fine structure constant. Apparently the fine structure constant would change for the whole universe if an asteroid hit the Earth and made it rotate faster (according to Mills).So let us ask ourselves the question Dr. Mills asked himself in 1986
I have a better question to ask. If someone writes a formula where left side represents some physical parameters of Earth, and right side is.... inverse fine structure constant, and someone claims that this makes any sort of sense, where this person should be sent? A Physics 101 refresher course? Or Astrophysics 101? Assuming that rate of Earth's rotation is special and somehow linked to fundamental constants of the Universe is a pretty grave error, akin to Geocentrism.
So your saying there isn't a relationship between gravity and electromagnetism? Why then are physicists looking for a unified theory at all?
Maybe this rewording of gospacex's post will help you understand it.
I was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?
New mathematical invention! If you have a formula with real numbers, and you want it to give imaginary result... you just insert "i" whereever you like! You feel uneasy writing "A = B" where A actually is not equal to B? You should not! It's new invention!
Also, a new physical invention! "Spacelike event"! (Don't ask me what that is...)
I was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?
No, that doesn't help your case.
I was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?
No, that doesn't help your case.
Again, you lack basic reading comprehension skills. You can have a spacelike interval. The problem is that mills didn't define an interval, he defined an event.New mathematical invention! If you have a formula with real numbers, and you want it to give imaginary result... you just insert "i" whereever you like! You feel uneasy writing "A = B" where A actually is not equal to B? You should not! It's new invention!
Also, a new physical invention! "Spacelike event"! (Don't ask me what that is...)
Here is a reference to the definition of spacelike.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169631/what-spacelike-timelike-and-lightlike-spacetime-interval-really-mean
I was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?
No, that doesn't help your case.
Please read this then. Thanks.
New mathematical invention! If you have a formula with real numbers, and you want it to give imaginary result... you just insert "i" whereever you like! You feel uneasy writing "A = B" where A actually is not equal to B? You should not! It's new invention!
Also, a new physical invention! "Spacelike event"! (Don't ask me what that is...)
Here is a reference to the definition of spacelike.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169631/what-spacelike-timelike-and-lightlike-spacetime-interval-really-mean
I was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?
No, that doesn't help your case.
I hope you both are aware that 'sec' is a new unit Mills defines, not seconds.
New mathematical invention! If you have a formula with real numbers, and you want it to give imaginary result... you just insert "i" whereever you like! You feel uneasy writing "A = B" where A actually is not equal to B? You should not! It's new invention!
Also, a new physical invention! "Spacelike event"! (Don't ask me what that is...)
Here is a reference to the definition of spacelike.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169631/what-spacelike-timelike-and-lightlike-spacetime-interval-really-mean
Yes. I know.
"What spacelike, timelike and lightlike spacetime interval really mean"
"Interval" is not "event". It's the (spacetime, IOW: four-dimensional) distance between two events.
Of all the things you just said, this demonstrates a complete lack of reading comprehension skills. The equation referred to does not link gravity and electromagnetism. It links the physical rotation rate of the Earth with the fine structure constant. Apparently the fine structure constant would change for the whole universe if an asteroid hit the Earth and made it rotate faster (according to Mills).
Maybe this rewording of gospacex's post will help you understand it.
Mills doesn't seem to say explicitly that L is the angular momentum of the Earth, though... Or what exactly m means, for that matter. So by choosing L/m suitably, the equation holds!
edit: Oh, he does indeed define L/m on the next line. I should have read the whole text. However, then Mills seems to go into something that can be best described as numerological speculation. After combining (generously rounded) radius and mass of the Earth with pi and G, he arrives at an expression which equals 136 s, or "approximately" \alpha^{-1} s (is that 136 a subtle nod to Eddington's theory?). The next sentence, however, is the real gem:QuoteThis close identity may have played a role in choosing the number 86,400 in the definition of the second.
Fortunately Mills' predictions of the hydrino's properties as well as the properties other, more established, chemical compounds does not depend on this numerological tangent. What does? His attempt to unify gravity with the rest of physics. If Mills were to drop the numerology, it would leave Hydrino theory unscathed.That would be true if the underlying math of his "predictions" was any more sound. I put predictions in quotes because it isn't a prediction when you start off by assuming the result you want. Since the hydrino is the central part of Mills theory, it seems like he has put more work into covering his tracks there, but the underlying logic seems equivalent.
Again, you lack basic reading comprehension skills. You can have a spacelike interval. The problem is that mills didn't define an interval, he defined an event.New mathematical invention! If you have a formula with real numbers, and you want it to give imaginary result... you just insert "i" whereever you like! You feel uneasy writing "A = B" where A actually is not equal to B? You should not! It's new invention!
Also, a new physical invention! "Spacelike event"! (Don't ask me what that is...)
Here is a reference to the definition of spacelike.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169631/what-spacelike-timelike-and-lightlike-spacetime-interval-really-meanI was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?
No, that doesn't help your case.
Please read this then. Thanks.
How does that make any of the following true?
2 = 3
2 = 3*i
2 = 2*i
a = b*i, where a and b are both pure real
Fortunately Mills' predictions of the hydrino's properties as well as the properties other, more established, chemical compounds does not depend on this numerological tangent. What does? His attempt to unify gravity with the rest of physics. If Mills were to drop the numerology, it would leave Hydrino theory unscathed.That would be true if the underlying math of his "predictions" was any more sound. I put predictions in quotes because it isn't a prediction when you start off by assuming the result you want. Since the hydrino is the central part of Mills theory, it seems like he has put more work into covering his tracks there, but the underlying logic seems equivalent.
I was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?
No, that doesn't help your case.
I hope you both are aware that 'sec' is a new unit Mills defines, not seconds.
The 'sec' Mills defines as a unit of time "defined by Eq. (36.2) in terms of fundamental constants and the electron mass" (page 1479).
There are _two_ hilariously stupid things linked to it.
(1) Later, on page 1548, Mills derives.... (drumroll)... _electron mass_ from fundamental constants and his 'sec'. What an amazing feat :o
(2) Physics already has one, and only one natural way to define natural unit of time: after you choose unit of length, the corresponding natural unit of time is time light needs to traverse your chosen unit of length. (If you use meter to measure distances, "meter of time" is about 3 nanoseconds). With such choice of units, speed of light is equal to 1 and all velocities are dimensionless values (they are no longer "m/s", but just numbers. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units). Any other "improved units of time" are nonsense.
Fortunately Mills' predictions of the hydrino's properties as well as the properties other, more established, chemical compounds does not depend on this numerological tangent. What does? His attempt to unify gravity with the rest of physics. If Mills were to drop the numerology, it would leave Hydrino theory unscathed.That would be true if the underlying math of his "predictions" was any more sound. I put predictions in quotes because it isn't a prediction when you start off by assuming the result you want. Since the hydrino is the central part of Mills theory, it seems like he has put more work into covering his tracks there, but the underlying logic seems equivalent.
Serendipity, fortuitous accidents and intuitive guessing 'hunches' and plain bad math have all led to great discoveries in science.
Yeah, two things strike me about Mills theory.
First it is very broad. It would make fundamental changes from chemistry to high energy physics to cosmology. Second, his grasp of mainstream physics appears to be incredibly shallow. Lets look at one particular example. On page 1641 he wrote:
" Bell's theorem is a simple proof of statistical inequalities of expectation values of observables given that quantum statistics are correct and that the physical system possesses "hidden variables". Classical physics does not posses hidden variables. It is deterministic and hidden variables do not apply to it. "
Now this is so wrong it hurts.
First, Bell's theorem does not assume quantum statistics are correct. Bell's theorem need not even mention quantum mechanics because it isn't about quantum mechanics. Bell's theorem is about the limits that can be placed on any local realistic theory.
Second, Mills theory is classical and so it is exactly the type of theory that Bell's theorem places limits on.
And third, if Mills theory were a local realistic theory that could reproduce quantum experimental results it would be exactly the hidden variable theory Einstein was looking for. By uncovering the hydrino states Mills uncovered Einstein's hidden physics. Except Bell proved that no such theory can exist because it cannot violate Bell's inequality, a basic limitation on classical physical theories.
And finally, Mill's theory is deterministic and so hidden variables do not apply to it?!? Einstein proposed unseen physics exactly in order to reduce quantum mechanics to a deterministic theory. How much wrong can you stuff into three sentences?
This single quoted section of Mills' book removes any possibility that mills has a clue. The only remaining question is is he really that dunderheaded or is it fraud. Given the combination of breadth and shallowness I vote fraud. But more than that given the level of intellectual degradation he would need to achieve to actually believe this mess I think calling it fraud is giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Since I'm not an expert on Bell's theorem I'd like to forward this to Mills and get his response. Is that ok?
Fine but Mills is the wrong person to ask about Bell's theorem. It is a very simple thing that an average high school student should be able to understand. The fact that you don't understand it means you absolutely are not qualified to judge Mills' theory. You cannot proceed until you have an understanding of it. And by understand I mean an understanding separate from vague mental images gleaned from Mills wall of text. Understand the real thing before you bother with the crap.
There are many pages on the internet that explain it. Or we could discuss it here.
Mills describes it as an event, not an interval. If your description is what he intended, but failed to communicate, it would break what was previously claimed here as one of the fundamental principles of his theory, that conservation laws are always held, since one particle would be created before the other (variable between frames). To avoid this, he would have to let them start on top of each other, which then explains the "event" but leaves the problem with the "spacelike".Again, you lack basic reading comprehension skills. You can have a spacelike interval. The problem is that mills didn't define an interval, he defined an event.New mathematical invention! If you have a formula with real numbers, and you want it to give imaginary result... you just insert "i" whereever you like! You feel uneasy writing "A = B" where A actually is not equal to B? You should not! It's new invention!
Also, a new physical invention! "Spacelike event"! (Don't ask me what that is...)
Here is a reference to the definition of spacelike.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169631/what-spacelike-timelike-and-lightlike-spacetime-interval-really-meanI was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?
No, that doesn't help your case.
Please read this then. Thanks.
How does that make any of the following true?
2 = 3
2 = 3*i
2 = 2*i
a = b*i, where a and b are both pure real
Mills' particle production is an interval between the two particles created. You certainly can think of it as two events and a interval. The spacelike condition guarantees they don't immediately annihilate. Mills' adds physics to quantum mechanical 'creation operators' which amount to symbols on paper with no physics content.
Mills describes it as an event, not an interval. If your description is what he intended, but failed to communicate, it would break what was previously claimed here as one of the fundamental principles of his theory, that conservation laws are always held, since one particle would be created before the other (variable between frames). To avoid this, he would have to let them start on top of each other, which then explains the "event" but leaves the problem with the "spacelike".Again, you lack basic reading comprehension skills. You can have a spacelike interval. The problem is that mills didn't define an interval, he defined an event.New mathematical invention! If you have a formula with real numbers, and you want it to give imaginary result... you just insert "i" whereever you like! You feel uneasy writing "A = B" where A actually is not equal to B? You should not! It's new invention!
Also, a new physical invention! "Spacelike event"! (Don't ask me what that is...)
Here is a reference to the definition of spacelike.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/169631/what-spacelike-timelike-and-lightlike-spacetime-interval-really-meanI was making a joke but it may help if you read the entire section to place what Mills is doing in context. Read the title of the box and also look at Box 32.1.The context where as gospacex pointed out, he has an equation that states a real number equals an imaginary number?
No, that doesn't help your case.
Please read this then. Thanks.
How does that make any of the following true?
2 = 3
2 = 3*i
2 = 2*i
a = b*i, where a and b are both pure real
Mills' particle production is an interval between the two particles created. You certainly can think of it as two events and a interval. The spacelike condition guarantees they don't immediately annihilate. Mills' adds physics to quantum mechanical 'creation operators' which amount to symbols on paper with no physics content.
I think the point that Mills' theory is contradictory on every level has been well made here. The biggest flaws like in my post quoted here about real and imaginary numbers have simply been ignored by the supporters, sometimes by starting a tangent that just makes it look like they are responding while missing the main point. To any who would ignore the basically endless list of contradictions, and absence of any accurate math in support of Mills, I don't think any further discussion will do any good, so don't expect to hear much or anything more from me.
*snip*
What I've seen are lawyerly 'gotcha' arguments devoid of inderstanding or actual interest in Mills ideas. Or strawman arguments like your playing with numbers above. I've found over the years that when I looked close at Mills arguments, my concerns have been resolved by understand what he is doing. But it's not easy. Geniuses are often hard to follow. Thanks again.
Yeah, two things strike me about Mills theory.
First it is very broad. It would make fundamental changes from chemistry to high energy physics to cosmology. Second, his grasp of mainstream physics appears to be incredibly shallow. Lets look at one particular example. On page 1641 he wrote:
" Bell's theorem is a simple proof of statistical inequalities of expectation values of observables given that quantum statistics are correct and that the physical system possesses "hidden variables". Classical physics does not posses hidden variables. It is deterministic and hidden variables do not apply to it. "
Now this is so wrong it hurts.
First, Bell's theorem does not assume quantum statistics are correct. Bell's theorem need not even mention quantum mechanics because it isn't about quantum mechanics. Bell's theorem is about the limits that can be placed on any local realistic theory.
Second, Mills theory is classical and so it is exactly the type of theory that Bell's theorem places limits on.
And third, if Mills theory were a local realistic theory that could reproduce quantum experimental results it would be exactly the hidden variable theory Einstein was looking for. By uncovering the hydrino states Mills uncovered Einstein's hidden physics. Except Bell proved that no such theory can exist because it cannot violate Bell's inequality, a basic limitation on classical physical theories.
And finally, Mill's theory is deterministic and so hidden variables do not apply to it?!? Einstein proposed unseen physics exactly in order to reduce quantum mechanics to a deterministic theory. How much wrong can you stuff into three sentences?
This single quoted section of Mills' book removes any possibility that mills has a clue. The only remaining question is is he really that dunderheaded or is it fraud. Given the combination of breadth and shallowness I vote fraud. But more than that given the level of intellectual degradation he would need to achieve to actually believe this mess I think calling it fraud is giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Since I'm not an expert on Bell's theorem I'd like to forward this to Mills and get his response. Is that ok?
Fine but Mills is the wrong person to ask about Bell's theorem. It is a very simple thing that an average high school student should be able to understand. The fact that you don't understand it means you absolutely are not qualified to judge Mills' theory. You cannot proceed until you have an understanding of it. And by understand I mean an understanding separate from vague mental images gleaned from Mills wall of text. Understand the real thing before you bother with the crap.
There are many pages on the internet that explain it. Or we could discuss it here.
Thanks for permission to sent this to Mills. No, I think Mills can respond himself. The only question is do you want me to strip out the fraud comments at the end or not? I'm sure Mills doesn't appreciate being called a fraud in a public forum but I'm willing to send it as is if that's what you want.
Yeah, two things strike me about Mills theory.
First it is very broad. It would make fundamental changes from chemistry to high energy physics to cosmology. Second, his grasp of mainstream physics appears to be incredibly shallow. Lets look at one particular example. On page 1641 he wrote:
" Bell's theorem is a simple proof of statistical inequalities of expectation values of observables given that quantum statistics are correct and that the physical system possesses "hidden variables". Classical physics does not posses hidden variables. It is deterministic and hidden variables do not apply to it. "
Now this is so wrong it hurts.
First, Bell's theorem does not assume quantum statistics are correct. Bell's theorem need not even mention quantum mechanics because it isn't about quantum mechanics. Bell's theorem is about the limits that can be placed on any local realistic theory.
Second, Mills theory is classical and so it is exactly the type of theory that Bell's theorem places limits on.
And third, if Mills theory were a local realistic theory that could reproduce quantum experimental results it would be exactly the hidden variable theory Einstein was looking for. By uncovering the hydrino states Mills uncovered Einstein's hidden physics. Except Bell proved that no such theory can exist because it cannot violate Bell's inequality, a basic limitation on classical physical theories.
And finally, Mill's theory is deterministic and so hidden variables do not apply to it?!? Einstein proposed unseen physics exactly in order to reduce quantum mechanics to a deterministic theory. How much wrong can you stuff into three sentences?
This single quoted section of Mills' book removes any possibility that mills has a clue. The only remaining question is is he really that dunderheaded or is it fraud. Given the combination of breadth and shallowness I vote fraud. But more than that given the level of intellectual degradation he would need to achieve to actually believe this mess I think calling it fraud is giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Since I'm not an expert on Bell's theorem I'd like to forward this to Mills and get his response. Is that ok?
Fine but Mills is the wrong person to ask about Bell's theorem. It is a very simple thing that an average high school student should be able to understand. The fact that you don't understand it means you absolutely are not qualified to judge Mills' theory. You cannot proceed until you have an understanding of it. And by understand I mean an understanding separate from vague mental images gleaned from Mills wall of text. Understand the real thing before you bother with the crap.
There are many pages on the internet that explain it. Or we could discuss it here.
Thanks for permission to sent this to Mills. No, I think Mills can respond himself. The only question is do you want me to strip out the fraud comments at the end or not? I'm sure Mills doesn't appreciate being called a fraud in a public forum but I'm willing to send it as is if that's what you want.
I don't care. I have no interest in what Mills thinks of me. You don't produce work that bad and still get to be taken seriously. You just don't. And you don't produce work that bad, have your patents revoked and spend tens of millions of dollars of other peoples money and not deal with suggestions of fraud. It would be irresponsible for anyone not to consider fraud. No rudeness is intended. Just a cold look at the facts.
And this shouldn't be about Mills. This should be about you. You said that you didn't understand Bell's theorem. You need to understand Bell's work and you need to get that understanding separate from Mills. Only then will you be able to judge this part of his work. Only knowledge can protect you.
I'm sorry if the discussion of fraud violates the forum rules. But this section of the forum was created to contain these types of discussions. It will naturally attract nonsense and fraud. It would be ironic and perverse to defend the discussion of impossible things like hydrinos on the grounds of free speech while preventing the very real possibility of fraud by a man who has spent tens of millions of other peoples money.
The mods are free to edit or delete my messages as they see fit. I stand by them as written.
*snip*
What I've seen are lawyerly 'gotcha' arguments devoid of inderstanding or actual interest in Mills ideas. Or strawman arguments like your playing with numbers above. I've found over the years that when I looked close at Mills arguments, my concerns have been resolved by understand what he is doing. But it's not easy. Geniuses are often hard to follow. Thanks again.
If Mills' math is wrong, then Mills is wrong. Nobel Prizes aren't given for doing bad math.
If the math was right, then everyone would be beating a path to his door - this has happened with every surprising or controversial discovery in physics.
*snip*
What I've seen are lawyerly 'gotcha' arguments devoid of inderstanding or actual interest in Mills ideas. Or strawman arguments like your playing with numbers above. I've found over the years that when I looked close at Mills arguments, my concerns have been resolved by understand what he is doing. But it's not easy. Geniuses are often hard to follow. Thanks again.
If Mills' math is wrong, then Mills is wrong. Nobel Prizes aren't given for doing bad math.
If the math was right, then everyone would be beating a path to his door - this has happened with every surprising or controversial discovery in physics.
Honestly, if hydrino's exist, you really think the physics police are going to argue Mills gets no credit if he made a math error? Nobel prizes aren't given for math, they are given for physics.
*snip*
What I've seen are lawyerly 'gotcha' arguments devoid of inderstanding or actual interest in Mills ideas. Or strawman arguments like your playing with numbers above. I've found over the years that when I looked close at Mills arguments, my concerns have been resolved by understand what he is doing. But it's not easy. Geniuses are often hard to follow. Thanks again.
If Mills' math is wrong, then Mills is wrong. Nobel Prizes aren't given for doing bad math.
If the math was right, then everyone would be beating a path to his door - this has happened with every surprising or controversial discovery in physics.
Honestly, if hydrino's exist, you really think the physics police are going to argue Mills gets no credit if he made a math error? Nobel prizes aren't given for math, they are given for physics.
Except for the overarching issue of there being no evidence whatsoever that hydrinos exist at all.
Physics IS math.
*snip*
What I've seen are lawyerly 'gotcha' arguments devoid of inderstanding or actual interest in Mills ideas. Or strawman arguments like your playing with numbers above. I've found over the years that when I looked close at Mills arguments, my concerns have been resolved by understand what he is doing. But it's not easy. Geniuses are often hard to follow. Thanks again.
If Mills' math is wrong, then Mills is wrong. Nobel Prizes aren't given for doing bad math.
If the math was right, then everyone would be beating a path to his door - this has happened with every surprising or controversial discovery in physics.
Honestly, if hydrino's exist, you really think the physics police are going to argue Mills gets no credit if he made a math error? Nobel prizes aren't given for math, they are given for physics.
Except for the overarching issue of there being no evidence whatsoever that hydrinos exist at all.
Physics IS math.
That's a very good illustration of the attitude difference between men like Mills and his critics. Mills believes physics is real and math is merely a tool and many of his critics believe the math first and foremost above all, even to the exclusion of data. Physics is not math, math is a tool. If it were we have no need of expensive science budgets as we could vet all ideas by math alone. ;)
I forgot that I wanted to include in my last post a partial list of what has been determined about Mills' claims in this thread as a summary. (Wording below assumes he isn't a fraud, though there should be clear reason to question that.)
-Mills does not understand anything about quantum mechanics. (His list of complaints about quantum are not actually true about quantum)
-Mills has no actual predictive theory
---He doesn't have a list of central assumptions
---Generally he just pulls equations from thin air, sometimes using results of theories he discounts
---If you parse through it, often his results are obtained from an original assumption that those are the results.
-Experimental evidence (measurements of electron position) disagrees with Mills' claim the electron is a 2d sphere.
-Claims that Mills can simply solve problems that are complex in quantum mechanics have not been accompanied by the supposed derivation
---The one response to this was a slide Mills had made that claims to support his theory, this slide shows an experimental picture with the fuzziness expected by quantum, and overlays a "prediction" to show it matches. The prediction looks like a result from standard quantum, and it is unclear how it could ever have come from Mills' "theory" (ignoring that he has no real theory)
-Deeper investigation of Mills' claims reveal direct contradictions, such as a real number equaling an imaginary number, or straight numerology.
-Claims that scientists are starting to support Mills have no real evidence backing them.
---at best a few people looked at Mills' device and say it seems to be producing some power.
---no independent replication or papers at all, except some old ones (e.g. NASA) which find less excess heat than Mills had claimed.
I may edit this post later, since I am likely forgetting a few important points.
*snip*
What I've seen are lawyerly 'gotcha' arguments devoid of inderstanding or actual interest in Mills ideas. Or strawman arguments like your playing with numbers above. I've found over the years that when I looked close at Mills arguments, my concerns have been resolved by understand what he is doing. But it's not easy. Geniuses are often hard to follow. Thanks again.
If Mills' math is wrong, then Mills is wrong. Nobel Prizes aren't given for doing bad math.
If the math was right, then everyone would be beating a path to his door - this has happened with every surprising or controversial discovery in physics.
Honestly, if hydrino's exist, you really think the physics police are going to argue Mills gets no credit if he made a math error? Nobel prizes aren't given for math, they are given for physics.
Except for the overarching issue of there being no evidence whatsoever that hydrinos exist at all.
Physics IS math.
That's a very good illustration of the attitude difference between men like Mills and his critics. Mills believes physics is real and math is merely a tool and many of his critics believe the math first and foremost above all, even to the exclusion of data. Physics is not math, math is a tool. If it were we have no need of expensive science budgets as we could vet all ideas by math alone. ;)
The opposite is equally true. Physics cannot live on experimentation alone. If you can't mathematically describe what's happening in your experiments, you may as well be practicing witchcraft.
This scam has been ongoing for 26 years now, and still no undeniable proof in sight. That alone proves that there is nothing of substance to see here.
This scam has been ongoing for 26 years now, and still no undeniable proof in sight. That alone proves that there is nothing of substance to see here.
Proves? It doesn't prove anything except its a hard problem. Very hard. Also that Mills is tenacious.
This scam has been ongoing for 26 years now, and still no undeniable proof in sight. That alone proves that there is nothing of substance to see here.
Proves? It doesn't prove anything except its a hard problem. Very hard. Also that Mills is tenacious.
Or that he likes fleecing money from investors while perpetually never delivering on his promises.
This scam has been ongoing for 26 years now, and still no undeniable proof in sight. That alone proves that there is nothing of substance to see here.
Proves? It doesn't prove anything except its a hard problem. Very hard. Also that Mills is tenacious.
Or that he likes fleecing money from investors while perpetually never delivering on his promises.
Do you honestly believe that or is it just casual talk?
Yeah, two things strike me about Mills theory.
First it is very broad. It would make fundamental changes from chemistry to high energy physics to cosmology. Second, his grasp of mainstream physics appears to be incredibly shallow. Lets look at one particular example. On page 1641 he wrote:
" Bell's theorem is a simple proof of statistical inequalities of expectation values of observables given that quantum statistics are correct and that the physical system possesses "hidden variables". Classical physics does not posses hidden variables. It is deterministic and hidden variables do not apply to it. "
Now this is so wrong it hurts.
First, Bell's theorem does not assume quantum statistics are correct. Bell's theorem need not even mention quantum mechanics because it isn't about quantum mechanics. Bell's theorem is about the limits that can be placed on any local realistic theory.
Second, Mills theory is classical and so it is exactly the type of theory that Bell's theorem places limits on.
And third, if Mills theory were a local realistic theory that could reproduce quantum experimental results it would be exactly the hidden variable theory Einstein was looking for. By uncovering the hydrino states Mills uncovered Einstein's hidden physics. Except Bell proved that no such theory can exist because it cannot violate Bell's inequality, a basic limitation on classical physical theories.
And finally, Mill's theory is deterministic and so hidden variables do not apply to it?!? Einstein proposed unseen physics exactly in order to reduce quantum mechanics to a deterministic theory. How much wrong can you stuff into three sentences?
This single quoted section of Mills' book removes any possibility that mills has a clue. The only remaining question is is he really that dunderheaded or is it fraud. Given the combination of breadth and shallowness I vote fraud. But more than that given the level of intellectual degradation he would need to achieve to actually believe this mess I think calling it fraud is giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Since I'm not an expert on Bell's theorem I'd like to forward this to Mills and get his response. Is that ok?
Fine but Mills is the wrong person to ask about Bell's theorem. It is a very simple thing that an average high school student should be able to understand. The fact that you don't understand it means you absolutely are not qualified to judge Mills' theory. You cannot proceed until you have an understanding of it. And by understand I mean an understanding separate from vague mental images gleaned from Mills wall of text. Understand the real thing before you bother with the crap.
There are many pages on the internet that explain it. Or we could discuss it here.
Thanks for permission to sent this to Mills. No, I think Mills can respond himself. The only question is do you want me to strip out the fraud comments at the end or not? I'm sure Mills doesn't appreciate being called a fraud in a public forum but I'm willing to send it as is if that's what you want.
I don't care. I have no interest in what Mills thinks of me. You don't produce work that bad and still get to be taken seriously. You just don't. And you don't produce work that bad, have your patents revoked and spend tens of millions of dollars of other peoples money and not deal with suggestions of fraud. It would be irresponsible for anyone not to consider fraud. No rudeness is intended. Just a cold look at the facts.
And this shouldn't be about Mills. This should be about you. You said that you didn't understand Bell's theorem. You need to understand Bell's work and you need to get that understanding separate from Mills. Only then will you be able to judge this part of his work. Only knowledge can protect you.
I'm sorry if the discussion of fraud violates the forum rules. But this section of the forum was created to contain these types of discussions. It will naturally attract nonsense and fraud. It would be ironic and perverse to defend the discussion of impossible things like hydrinos on the grounds of free speech while preventing the very real possibility of fraud by a man who has spent tens of millions of other peoples money.
The mods are free to edit or delete my messages as they see fit. I stand by them as written.
You claim I said I don't understand Bell's theorem. Pease point me to where I said such a thing. I said I'm not an expert which is entirely a different concept.
Thanks again for your clarification.
Anyone seen this youtube video yet? Looks like the same reaction going on in mills' device. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIZsc3cKufk
The whole thing is pretty curious from an uneducated, wishful thinking viewpoint.
Yes, of course. The point im trying to make is that it does resemble the same thing going on with Mills' device. Why hasn't anyone come out and said "this is really whats going on, but nice try" if it is that easily dismissed.
Let me ask you this. If you were to posses a technology which by its very existence would threaten your life, but it would also revolutionize the world. What would you do with it, if you were "this close" to making it work in your mind. Just saying, have an open mind. Why such the hostility towards even the least of credible ideas. If you don't like it you do not and shouldn't invest.
On that note, I'd recommend buying at least a little bit of silver right now. Even if its all a pot of crap, You can still cash out for most of your money back on silver at any time.
Even if much of Mills math was purely descriptive, for instance describing hydrino chemistry and rates of reactions, it's still better than some theorist declaring "it simply cannot be". Physics needs both yet real data should not be thrown out because people don't understand or like the theory. They should conditionally accept the data and replicate it then try and explain it. Not just ignore it because it doesn't fit QM.
Yes, of course. The point im trying to make is that it does resemble the same thing going on with Mills' device. Why hasn't anyone come out and said "this is really whats going on, but nice try" if it is that easily dismissed.
Let me ask you this. If you were to posses a technology which by its very existence would threaten your life, but it would also revolutionize the world. What would you do with it, if you were "this close" to making it work in your mind. Just saying, have an open mind. Why such the hostility towards even the least of credible ideas. If you don't like it you do not and shouldn't invest.
On that note, I'd recommend buying at least a little bit of silver right now. Even if its all a pot of crap, You can still cash out for most of your money back on silver at any time.
You may have read the title of the video, I'm saying read the description on the youtube video you linked to, where it says that it is a video of a BLP demonstration, so it doesn't just "resemble" it, it is one.
This "technology" doesn't threaten Mills' life. That is absurd.
The point many here are making is that it's not a credible idea.
This scam has been ongoing for 26 years now, and still no undeniable proof in sight. That alone proves that there is nothing of substance to see here.
Proves? It doesn't prove anything except its a hard problem. Very hard. Also that Mills is tenacious.
Or that he likes fleecing money from investors while perpetually never delivering on his promises.
Do you honestly believe that or is it just casual talk?
How many years has he been saying he'll have a deliverable power-producing product within a year?
It very much seems to be the case that he's a con man who is using a gish-gallop of shoddy math to hoodwink investors.
It is possible to convince me otherwise - if he opened up to in-depth investigation, allowed others to study his experimental setup, or produced papers showing his methodology and experimental setup so others can replicate what he's done, and so on. So far all that we have to see is the results of limited study, like of heat output from the setup (with separate runs producing wildly different results), that doesn't tell us a thing about what's actually going on inside it.
And some have.[citation needed]
Also, if he were merely a 'con man' trying to 'hoodwink' investors, why is he using that money to pay for expensive facilities, equipment and a staff of more than twenty scientists, engineers and technicians?Because giving the impression of being a real operation is essential to keeping the money flowing. The pitch has always been that real world exploitation is just around the corner, backed up by flashy but scientifically irrelevant demos. That doesn't work nearly as well if it's just one guy with books full of dodgy math.
What con man does that?There are numerous examples of this in the "free energy" and "cold fusion" generas, though few as long running as BLP.
If the founders of QM had had a better, Maxwell based reason for non-radiation, they would have used it and that may have led to an extended electron model something along the lines of Mills' model.
I'm agnostic as to whether Mills is a con artist or a true believer, or to what extent those around him are one or the other, but the incoherence of his theory and BLPs pattern of behavior over the last 25 years strongly suggests either is more likely than "hydrinos" being a thing.
Randell L. Mills
P. Ray
J. He
B. Dhandapani
M. Nansteel
Ying Lu
Kamran Akhtar
William R. Good
R.M. Mayo
X. Chen
Z. Chang
Andreas Voigt
G. Zhao
G. Chu
Yi Lu
Jonathan Phillips
J. Lotoski
Jinquan Dong
J.E. Scharer
Nelson Greenig
This patent proves that Brilliant Light Power is not joking when it comes to R&D:
"In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it."
R.P. Feynman
†Assuming that anybody who co-authors a paper by Randell L. Mills is a True Believer, which is a very reasonable™ assumption.It's actually a terrible assumption. At best, it's an indication they probably didn't think Mills was a fraud (presuming they were not a party to it) or total crackpot at the time of publication. Co-author of papers reporting experimental results should not be assumed to buy Mills theory, and it should be remembered that some (like Jansson) were funded by BLP.
†Assuming that anybody who co-authors a paper by Randell L. Mills is a True Believer, which is a very reasonable™ assumption.It's actually a terrible assumption. At best, it's an indication they probably didn't think Mills was a fraud (presuming they were not a party to it) or total crackpot at the time of publication.
Co-author of papers reporting experimental results should not be assumed to buy Mills theory, and it should be remembered that some (like Jansson) were funded by BLP.
PS:
There is a very long history of hucksters and cranks using patents to give their ideas an appearance of legitimacy.
Because giving the impression of being a real operation is essential to keeping the money flowing. The pitch has always been that real world exploitation is just around the corner, backed up by flashy but scientifically irrelevant demos.We're talking about real science here, specifically sub-ground state electron shells and their creation for energy production, not venture capitalist and politically created fraudulent industries like CO2 hysteria or asteroid mining/deflection.
That doesn't work nearly as well if it's just one guy with books full of dodgy math. And it works! Here you are, using the fact they spent some of that investor money on facilities and staff to argue that it can't be a scam! Never mind that putting up a convincing front is at the core of many investment scams.Expanding a research facility for more employees, experiments and equipment (like BLP, General Fusion and others) after establishing the funding to do so is not the same as investor frauds like commercial space and EVs, or meaningless jobs programs like STS and ITER.
This patent proves that Brilliant Light Power is not joking when it comes to R&D:bold emphasis, mine. Referring to them as "electrodes" implies currant, which I can only assume is ground?
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservicepdf_pct/id00000038735552/PAMPH/WO2017127447.pdf
FIG. 2I88 is a beast - a schematic drawing of a thermophotovoltaic SF-CIHT cell power generator comprising dual EM pump injectors as liquid electrodes showing the generator support components in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure.
(https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservice_image_drawings/WO@@@id00000038735552@@@11156021@@@600@@@0@@@000324.tif)
We're talking about real science here, specifically sub-ground state electron shells and their creation for energy production,By real science do you mean real gibberish? Go back through this thread to see some of the various ways that hydrino theory is nonsense.
venture capitalist and politically created fraudulent industries like CO2 hysteria or asteroid mining/deflection.Not only are all of the things you mentioned off topic, these things are not fraudulent. Go to the relevant threads if you want to make those claims.
...
investor frauds like commercial space and EVs, or meaningless jobs programs like STS and ITER.
I just want to say, real or not, that device would have made an awesome prop in an old Hammer Films sci fi flick.
We're talking about real science here, specifically sub-ground state electron shells and their creation for energy production,By real science do you mean real gibberish? Go back through this thread to see some of the various ways that hydrino theory is nonsense.venture capitalist and politically created fraudulent industries like CO2 hysteria or asteroid mining/deflection.Not only are all of the things you mentioned off topic, these things are not fraudulent. Go to the relevant threads if you want to make those claims.
...
investor frauds like commercial space and EVs, or meaningless jobs programs like STS and ITER.
Meanwhile you didn't actually address the points you were responding to.
Does the theory of hydrino's violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and if so why?Not sure where that question is coming from or why it is relevant.
There is a phenomenon called electron capture:As that article notes, electron capture changes a proton to neutron (as one might expect), and thus reduces the atomic number of atom involved. This cannot be the mechanism involved here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture
An electron not only goes very near the nucleus respect to the lowest stable orbital, but also enters the nucleus and makes a nuclear reaction. It seems that there is no emission of additional unexpected radiation (respect to the well know above description) during the phenomenon, no run through fractional levels. This is not a matter of theory, it is a matter of facts. Please read the wikipedia link.
Does the theory of hydrino's violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and if so why?Not sure where that question is coming from or why it is relevant.
Mill's theory violates so many physical laws it is hard to count. From the reviews of his book earlier in this thread, it seems he has managed to make false statements about just about every aspect of physics. I'd be surprised if none of them contradicted the second law of thermodynamics, but why should I bother looking through his whole book for an example of that specific falsehood?
Violations of the second law tend to be subtle, and I see no point in spending time analyzing this. Also, it is impossible to analyze this without a theory to describe it, and the only one available is Mills'. Given all of the contradictions in Mill's theory, I am not sure the question even could be answered.Does the theory of hydrino's violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and if so why?Not sure where that question is coming from or why it is relevant.
Mill's theory violates so many physical laws it is hard to count. From the reviews of his book earlier in this thread, it seems he has managed to make false statements about just about every aspect of physics. I'd be surprised if none of them contradicted the second law of thermodynamics, but why should I bother looking through his whole book for an example of that specific falsehood?
Let me state it more clearly. In your view, would the physical existence of a hydrino state violate the Second Law? If so, why. That's a question independent of any of Mill's theories about it. Thanks.
Violations of the second law tend to be subtle, and I see no point in spending time analyzing this. Also, it is impossible to analyze this without a theory to describe it, and the only one available is Mills'. Given all of the contradictions in Mill's theory, I am not sure the question even could be answered.Does the theory of hydrino's violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics and if so why?Not sure where that question is coming from or why it is relevant.
Mill's theory violates so many physical laws it is hard to count. From the reviews of his book earlier in this thread, it seems he has managed to make false statements about just about every aspect of physics. I'd be surprised if none of them contradicted the second law of thermodynamics, but why should I bother looking through his whole book for an example of that specific falsehood?
Let me state it more clearly. In your view, would the physical existence of a hydrino state violate the Second Law? If so, why. That's a question independent of any of Mill's theories about it. Thanks.
To rephrase my question, why are you specifically asking about the 2nd law?
I'm curious because I've seen arguments in the past that assert that lower than ground states would necessarily violate the 2nd law. Also, the 2nd law has been experimentally challenged recently by Sheehan et. al.I'd have to see these arguments to know what to think of them, if you point me to them I could discuss them. It wouldn't surprise me since the second law tends to get in the way of a lot of useful things.
I'm curious because I've seen arguments in the past that assert that lower than ground states would necessarily violate the 2nd law. Also, the 2nd law has been experimentally challenged recently by Sheehan et. al.I'd have to see these arguments to know what to think of them, if you point me to them I could discuss them. It wouldn't surprise me since the second law tends to get in the way of a lot of useful things.
Some brief research (https://www.quora.com/Will-Daniel-Sheehans-second-law-violating-device-which-is-a-modified-P-N-junction-diode-save-the-planet-from-global-warming) on Sheehan does not indicate that there is any reason to believe their claims are anything other than another case of "trust me I created a perpetual motion machine." Lets not get lost discussing that.
The abstract is enough. They might as well be describing a box where you heat one side, and then extract energy from the temperature gradient of the box, which is both pointless and not a violation of the second law. I could describe more issues but as I already said, Sheehan's work is off topic.I'm curious because I've seen arguments in the past that assert that lower than ground states would necessarily violate the 2nd law. Also, the 2nd law has been experimentally challenged recently by Sheehan et. al.I'd have to see these arguments to know what to think of them, if you point me to them I could discuss them. It wouldn't surprise me since the second law tends to get in the way of a lot of useful things.
Some brief research (https://www.quora.com/Will-Daniel-Sheehans-second-law-violating-device-which-is-a-modified-P-N-junction-diode-save-the-planet-from-global-warming) on Sheehan does not indicate that there is any reason to believe their claims are anything other than another case of "trust me I created a perpetual motion machine." Lets not get lost discussing that.
The paper I want you to see is this;
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-014-9781-5
Unfortunately, it's now behind a paywall. Maybe you can get it for free here;
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263004066_Experimental_Test_of_a_Thermodynamic_Paradox
It is possible to produce an experimental setup that appears to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.Good example of Maxwell's demon. Small scale fluctuations exist, but the local and short lived nature makes them impossible to combine and create large scale effects.
http://www.nature.com/news/2002/020722/full/news020722-2.html#B2
However, such experiments are always local and on short time-scales, "zooming out" to the larger system and over longer periods of time always finds the 2nd law of thermodynamics to hold true. Where you will find yourself in error is by attempting to draw a broader conclusion from limited conditions.
As far as I can tell, only updated needed isI don't want to get into a contest over this stuff but I think it's pretty telling that most of the folks who seem to object violently to BLP have yet to actually look at the evidence. Don't you?Yes, it's quite telling. In more than 10 years, BLP hasn't actually produced any evidence, despite pulling in millions from gullible investors.
What they have produced is incoherent pseudoscience (http://www.articlearchives.com/energy-utilities/utilities-industry-electric-power/940667-1.html) and press releases.
(can you tell we've seen this playbook before)
Here is the first idea I'll introduce. Electrons are photons that go round and round but not moons.Electrons have rest mass and charge. Photons have neither. This is part of the definition of what those terms refer to. These things are also trivial to demonstrate, for example, 2 parallel plates with an electric field between them deflect an electron beam (see: CRT TVs) but do not deflect a laser. It is easy to look up experiments testing for non-zero photon mass or mass of the electron. (The most basic experiments measure the charge/mass ratio of the electron.)
Dont' get emotionally hijacked by the old guys who says its not possible. If you aren't up to date with Quantum mechanics, you'll realize this was going to eventually happen despite immense resistance.Go read through the previous posts on this thread, they clearly demonstrate that Mills is the one who does not understand quantum mechanics.
I'm interested in discussing physics. If you want to engage in a debate about how this is real or not real, based on your emotional responses guised as logic - I'm not interested (can you tell we've seen this playbook before)Yes, you are using the playbook you are talking about. You dismiss logical arguments as "emotional," and claim you want to talk about physics, while not actually providing any statements that have any relation to physics. You are making fantastical claims about power generation that should be trivial to demonstrate, but can't point to any meaningful demonstration of it.
Dont' get emotionally hijacked by the old guys who says its not possible.
Dont' get emotionally hijacked by the old guys who says its not possible.
I'm interested in discussing physics. If you want to engage in a debate about how this is real or not real, based on your emotional responses guised as logic - I'm not interested (can you tell we've seen this playbook before)