Brilliant Light Power - Dec 16, 2016 UK Roadshow

  • stefan wrote:

    Are you playing with me? or do you want people with less knowledge of math to follow the reasoning? There is no need to go further down in the details unless you are very weak in maths in which case I think we should invite someone else to testify the steps. Also did you not see how m -> m / (2 pi) can be done in a change of reference systems and explains all 2*pi.


    Eric may or may not be, by your standards, very weak in maths. That is not the point: which is that any mathematical derivation can be laid out explicitly and in detail (as you would find in any proof) so that it can be agreed or (if incorrect) shown wrong by anyone able to do maths. Expecting others to fill in gaps, however this may be easy for you, is not fair because the same argument could be made by someone who cannot fill in the gaps himself.

  • Expecting others to fill in gaps, however this may be easy for you, is not fair because the same argument could be made by someone who cannot fill in the gaps himself.


    And requiring Stefan to work out the math himself, if he believes it to be straightforward, will put the work of debugging any issues that fall out of the effort where it belongs: with the person making the claim as to the legitimacy of the derivation. As I discovered here, there ARE likely to be some inexplicable "bugs". The only question is whether they are benign.


    Any time a derived equation is off by 2, or 2pi, or 2/3, let alone some inexplicable transformation with no explanation in the text, this is something to be patiently sorted out with the patience of an accountant. I do not have the motivation to chase down these loose ends myself. But perhaps someone who believes the derivation is legitimate will. Anyone who has ever worked through a mathematical proof will know exactly what is needed in this instance and will not chafe at the request. I probably do not even need to mention this.

  • Eric may or may not be, by your standards, very weak in maths.


    @THH: A year ago I faced the same obstacles as many others. I spent about 8 weeks to get into GUT-CP and finally stoped - overloaded with to many things, I only digested half or even less. My mathematical intuition is very high level, but my skills were degenerated - not used... My stoping point, to put GUT-CP back onto the stack of one more theory to look at, was caused by poor understanding of the final GUT-CP conclusion, starting at 33.21, where, first time, an overview is given, how all nature constants fit together.


    I took mo (proton rest mass), started a calculation which showed that the equation is odd...


    I just overlooked the crucial small sentence two lines below: mo is the Grand Unification Mass or Planck mass, mu. Not the restmass of a particle...


    There are three turning points you must circumvent:


    1 : Forget Minkovski space - the universe is spheric not a 3D (+T) Rimannsche base.
    2 : Thereof you get the new relativistic measures for length contraction, which for a circle is maximally 2phi. Where alpha, deduced from the electron equation, is the radial contraction form the equilibrium point to the relativistic equivalent radius.
    3 : In older presentations Mills shows simpler ways to explain the non radiation condition. As a basic hint, just think that the captured photon is locked into the orbit-sphere orthogonal to the electron current. Later, for the lepton resonances, it is important that in a 3D sphere, only two additional trajectories can coexist which are mutually orthogonal.


    Mills formulas assume, that the system is at minimal energy. Thus all forces (electric and magnetic) between locked in photons and e.g. electron current can be exactly calculated.


    It is by far not clear, if a disturbance of this balanced system will slightly shift the orthogonality and at when the turning point of radiation is reached.


    (4) To understand the sec unit - the cosmological correction factor of space-time - is an other step. But ignoring it, leads only to a small error in the universal mass relation equations.


    But here the last tip: Mills basic thinking is, that there is a relation between the total mass of the universe and the physical escape velocity to escape the universe. This is analogous to escape the orbit of the earth/sun/planet system/galaxies etc...


    The only question is: Who ever used the simple analogy that c - the speed of light - is the cosmological escape velocity? ( Not talking about the mass of the universe, which is only guess work so far!)



    Disclaimer: I'm not telling that I understand more than 5% of the book, but the concepts seem no longer flying in a n-dimensional non linear xy space...