• Jack Cole said "He(Mills) takes small (maybe false) experimental result and extrapolates it to the Nth degree.


    The most relevant evidence dated January 2015 is a report on a solid fuel cell.

    "H2O-based solid fuel power source based on the catalysis of H by HOH catalyst"

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…cle/pii/S0360319914028468


    I do not think that this is false, having taken the time to read it.

    Perhaps Jack you can find something that is patently false in it?


    On the question of "extrapolating to the nth degree."

    You mentioned 1 MW from a basketball ???

    which I interpret as a question about power density.


    Mills Jan/15 calorimeter report calculates power to be 1.24 MW per 0.7 ns

    Mills says this is typical. The short time interval is necessitated by the calorimetry set up.


    Mills' technology needs 'extrapolation'from nanoseconds intervals to 24/7 continuity,


    The extrapolation is not in terms of power, but in terms of the time frame.


    judging from the BLP site videos Mills has moved on from nanosecond to hourly durations

    in the intervening 2-3 yrs since that expt was done.

    Video March13/2015 Duration= 21.9 milliseconds

    Video Sept 2/2016 Duration > 60 seconds

    Video Sept 9/2016 Duration reported as ~ 2hours

    Recent April video addresses silver electrode control, appears solved?



    The power density is not really an issue - a 1MW basketball?


    Just to get a ball park comparison, I'll compare that to my car.

    The thermal rating for my Mazda3 engine is probably something like 350Kw =0.35Megawatts

    The Mazda engine size is stated as 2.5 litres.

    The Mills basket ball is ~7 litres

    The power density of Mills basketball compared to my Mazda 3 is


    1 megawatt/7litres compared to 0.35megawatt/2.5 litres

    which calculates to be 0.142 for Mills baske ball

    versus 0.14 for my Mazda 3 engine.


    In terms of power density Mills 1MW basketball is not so much different from my Mazda 3 engine.

    I guess Mills will report 24/7 operation some time.

    Setting up the laboratory to measure / exhaust 1 MW seems feasible in Mazda terms

    and might have been achieved already


    Check my calculations if you like

    We can all make unintentional errors.

    Bear in mind these are 'ball:)park' figures.

  • I know that QM is the most accurate theory ever devised and has passed every test so far.

    That claim is all bombast and propaganda. By the calculations of mainstream physics, about 95% percent of the universe is composed of mysterious dark matter/energy. In other words they have NO IDEA was 95% of the universe is made of. What amazing accuracy! If that counts as 'passing every test so far,' then I dear say they have set the bar too low.


    The only reason that QM is "accurate" about some things is because contemporary physicists push equations to match data. If you are tailoring your equations to match your data, well then of course your equations are going to be accurate. Mainstream physics is far from accurate. In fact, they really have no idea how far off they are and how many mistakes have been built into their equations over the decades, which are then 'corrected' by post-hoc equations that are, again, tailored to fit the data. And if they can't figure out a way to bend the equations to fit the data, they simply invent new particles and/or new forces. Hell, with an empty vacuum full of virtual particles, physicists are now like


    I only know of one theorist who has gone back to the fundamental postulates and equations of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Lagrange, Planck, Boltzmann and many others to identify and fix their mistakes, while at the same time delivering a truly mechanical theory that is wholly compatible with the empirical results of QM. He has also solved the 'mystery' of dark matter/energy.

  • On the question of "extrapolating to the nth degree."

    You mentioned 1 MW from a basketball ???

    which I interpret as a question about power density.


    Mills Jan/15 calorimeter report calculates power to be 1.24 MW per 0.7 ns

    Mills says this is typical. The short time interval is necessitated by the calorimetry set up.

    Yes, that is extrapolation to the Nth degree. They come up with all kinds of amazing imaginative ideas for how to use all the energy they will some day be able to create based on extrapolated energy generation. I don't know about their more recent tests, but earlier tests in the bomb calorimeter showed an energy gain of ~2 (for a single brief event). I'm not convinced that they are doing anything beyond burning metal at this point. A lot of times, it is difficult to know what has been measured and what has been extrapolated. They don't always make that clear, and it doesn't really seem to matter to Mills.

  • joshg


    The claim that QM is the most accurate theory can specifically be attributed to QED based on the most precise measurement of the anomalous magnetic dipole moment (g-2).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_tests_of_QED

    g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 85 (76)


    This measurement is to a precision of better than one part in a trillion.


    I presume you know this already.


    Now you are free to argue this is not a fact. That the equations were fudged to match the experimental findings. A bold claim. There are many physicists looking for a replacement theory for QM and I would expect some of them would have challenged this finding if it is a fudge (or is this another conspiracy like climate change)?

    Or you can try a semantic argument based on different definitions of what "the most accurate theory" might mean and talk of dark matter and dark energy etc.

    But while I can cut and past the information above from Wikipedia I am not a physicist and have no clue what g/2 actually means so you need to find a qualified person to argue this with.

  • joshg


    The claim that QM is the most accurate theory can specifically be attributed to QED based on the most precise measurement of the anomalous magnetic dipole moment (g-2).


    https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27165


    LENR is not Hermitic. Quantum Mechanics cannot describe LENR because QM is Hermitic . LENR is an optical mechanism. It is PT Symmetric. In fact, breaking PT symmetry is what causes LENR.


    PT Symmetry


    When Dirac formulated the postulates of quantum theory, he required Hermiticity to be the fundamental symmetry for his equations. For Dirac, the requirement of Hermiticity was the mathematical device that he needed to ensure that all predictions for the outcomes of real-world measurements of quantum systems resulted in a real number. This is important since we only observe real outcomes in actual experimental observations. Dirac’s choice of Hermiticity as the fundamental symmetry of quantum theory was not seriously challenged for around seventy years.


    Hermiticity is a subtle and abstract symmetry that is mathematical in its origin. Broadly speaking, the requirement of Hermiticity imposes a boundary on a system. This is an idealization in which a system is isolated from any surrounding environment (and hence cannot be measured). While this gives a tractable mathematical framework for quantum theory, it is an unphysical requirement since all systems interact with their environment and if we wish to measure a system then such an interaction is required.


    In 1998, Carl Bender and Stefan Boettcher wrote a paper exploring the replacement of Hermiticity with another symmetry. They showed that they could replace the mathematically motivated symmetry of Dirac by a physically motivated symmetry preserving the reality of experimental outcomes. Their new theory, however, had interesting new features—it was not a like-for-like replacement.


    The underlying symmetry that Bender and Boettcher found was what they called “PT symmetry.” The symmetry here is geometric in nature and is hence closer to physics than is Hermiticity. The “P” stands for “parity” symmetry, sometimes called mirror symmetry. If a system respects “P” symmetry, then the evolution of the system would not change for a spatially reflected version of the system. The “T” stands for “time-reversal.” Time-reversal symmetry is just as it sounds—a physical system respecting this symmetry would evolve in the same way regardless whether time runs forward or backward. Some systems do individually exhibit P and T symmetries, but it is the combination of the two that seems to be fundamental to quantum theory.


    Instead of describing a system in isolation, PT symmetry describes a system that is in balance with its environment. Energy may flow in and out of the system, and hence measurements can be made within the theoretical framework of a system described by a PT symmetry. The requirement is that the same amount of energy that flows in must also flow out of the system.


    This subtler definition of a system’s relationship with its environment, provided by PT symmetry, has made it possible to describe a much wider class of systems in mathematical terms. This has led not only to an enhanced understanding of these systems but also to experimental results that support the choice of PT as the underlying symmetry in quantum mechanics. Several physical models for specific systems that had previously been studied and rejected, because they did not respect Hermiticity, have been re-examined and found to be PT symmetric.


    It is remarkable that the study of PT symmetry has progressed so rapidly. For many areas of theoretical physics, the time-lag between theory and experiment is now on the order of several decades. We may never be able to fully test string theory and experimental verification of the fifty-year-old theory of supersymmetry remains elusive.


    In the eighteen years since Bender and Boettcher’s 1998 paper, experimentalists have created PT lasers, PT superconducting wires, PT NMR and PT diffusion experiments to mention just a few validations of their theory.  As PT symmetry has matured, it has inspired the creation of exotic metamaterials that have properties that allow us to control light in new ways. The academic community, initially skeptical of such a fundamental change in quantum theory, has warmed to the idea of PT symmetry. Over 200 researchers from around the world have published scholarly papers on PT symmetry. The literature now extends to more than 2000 articles, many in top journals such as Nature, Science and Physical Review Letters.


    The future is bright for PT-symmetric quantum mechanics, but there is still work to be done. Many of the experiments mentioned have quantum mechanical aspects but are not full verifications of PT quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, existing experiments are already leading to exciting results. PT is a hot topic in the optics and graphene communities and the idea of creating a computer based on optical rather than electronic principles has recently been suggested. At the beginning of the 21st century, we are finding a new understanding of quantum theory that has the potential to unlock new technologies in the same way that semi-conductor physics was unlocked by the rise of quantum mechanics one hundred years ago.


    Also See


    http://www.europhysicsnews.org…2016/02/epn2016472p17.pdf


    PT SYMMETRY IN QUANTUM PHYSICS: FROM A MATHEMATICAL CURIOSITY TO OPTICAL EXPERIMENTS

    Carl M. Bender

  • Jack Cole affirmed "Yes, that is extrapolation to the Nth degree.

    Rhetoric to the 2nd degree? Randy Mills' 1.24 MW calculation was based on 0.7 nanosecond. Longterm input/output measurements require a 24/7 process.

    No written reports yet, but videos suggest the duration is now an hour at least. From nanosecond to hour is a tera factor increase in the time duration in 3 years .


    Jack Cole said "I don't know about their more recent tests, "

    The 2014 report, I referenced is available on the BLP site for perusal or at Elsevier etc if one has access to an academic institution library

    Title ="H2O-Based Solid Fuel Power Source Based on the Catalysis of H by HOH Catalyst"

    Jack Cole said "Earlier tests .. "

    Perhaps one earlier test Jack is referring is the 2012 report

    R. Mills, X Yu, Y. Lu, G Chu, J. He, J. Lotoski, “Catalyst induced hydrino transition (CIHT) electrochemical cell,” (2012), Int. J. Energy Res., (2013),

    Mills stated that he is getting much higher power densities in the 2014 report.


    Jack Cole said "The bomb calorimeter showed an energy gain of ~2 (for a single brief event). "

    Table 1 in 2014 report shows energy gains of 7x and 4.5 x for Titanium water samples.Comparison with 21 other samples in Table1 indicated that energy gain is much greater than conventional chemical enthalpic gain.


    Jack Cole said "I'm not convinced that they are doing anything beyond burning metal at this point. "

    The 2014 report statesEach sample was ignited under argon”


    Jack Cole said "A lot of times, it is difficult to know what has been measured and what has been extrapolated. They don't always make that clear, and it doesn't really seem to matter to Mills. "

    The 2014 report states

    "The power density was confirmed to be about 3 X 1010 W/liter of fuel volume using the measured time of the event and the energy released as measured by bomb calorimetry. The predicted molecular hydrino H2(1/4) was identified as a product by Raman spectroscopy, photoluminescence emission spectroscopy, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS)."

    There is no extrapolation here. The " 1MW from a basketball" idea is not extrapolation in terms of power level , because 1.24 MW has already been obtained in the bomb calorimeter. However it is extrapolation from nanosecond duration to 24/7 .

    24/7 operation plus an input/output test is what Mills and his team are working on now.


    Hopefully Mills will take less time than the development of the incandescent light :) bulb

    (1838-1904) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb

  • The claim that QM is the most accurate theory can specifically be attributed to QED based on the most precise measurement of the anomalous magnetic dipole moment (g-2).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_tests_of_QED

    g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 85 (76)


    I hope you understand what you write... May be you can show/tell us the connection between the experiment and QM - not QED!


    What about a modell for the third ionzation energy of Lithium? (Li2+ --> Li3+ Can You show us the calculated results?

  • Wyttenbach said

    "What about a modell for the third ionzation energy of Lithium?"


    Why not just the ionisation energies for helium?


    Actually physicists tried to use the QM approach to mathematically derive the ground state energy level of helium.

    The exptal value is -79.01 eV.

    Eventually, after three decades, QM approximation methods gave almost perfect agreement with the exptal value,

    BUT the approximation method required 1078!!!!! parameters to be inserted (Pekeris,1959)

    http://www.umich.edu/~chem461/QM%20Chap%208.pdf


    In contrast Mills calculates the first ionisation energy as -24.5875 eV

    (pg 301 Table 9.5 , the excited states of helium, GUTCP, 2016).

    Mills' IE value differs by 0.0004% from the exptal value

    BUT requires a few fundamental physical constants rather than hundreds of fudge factor parameters.

    Mills version is rather easier to calculate too.


    The claim

    "QM is the most accurate theory ever devised"

    requires an adjunct claim:

    "QM is the most fudged theory ever devised."

  • The claim that QM is the most accurate theory can specifically be attributed to QED based on the most precise measurement of the anomalous magnetic dipole moment

    I think you are confusing measurement precision with predictive accuracy. And you are certainly confusing both with real understanding. If I follow your link, I find this:


    "Tests of a theory are normally carried out by comparing experimental results to theoretical predictions. In QED, there is some subtlety in this comparison, because theoretical predictions require as input an extremely precise value of α, which can only be obtained from another precision QED experiment. Because of this, the comparisons between theory and experiment are usually quoted as independent determinations of α. QED is then confirmed to the extent that these measurements of α from different physical sources agree with each other."


    A lot of bluster that basically means they are comparing experimental results to improve the precision of their measurements. Think of it this way: I can calculate PI to any significant digit you want. It is simply the ratio of two numbers. But then if I want to derive the value of PI by actually measuring the circumference and diameter of some circle, I would need to have very accurate instruments in order to be able to make a precise enough measurement in order to match the observed value of PI to the 'precise theoretical calculation' of PI. All they are saying is that they have been able to measure g and alpha (the fine structure constant) to a high degree of precision.


    But you know what? They don't even know what the fine structure constant is or why it has the value it does. Feynman said that the fine structure constant is "one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics--a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man... 137 has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it."


    He didn't mean that they worry about calculating it out to a precision of 15 or 20 significant digits. He meant that they (should) worry about where the number comes from, what it means, why it has the value it does. And yet to day, mainstream physicists still don't understand where the number comes from. In fac they've given up caring. But here are three papers that clearly and elegantly explains where it comes from and why it has the value that it does:


    http://milesmathis.com/fine.html


    http://milesmathis.com/fine2.pdf


    http://milesmathis.com/fine3.pdf


    Actually physicists tried to use the QM approach to mathematically derive the ground state energy level of helium.

    The exptal value is -79.01 eV.

    Eventually, after three decades, QM approximation methods gave almost perfect agreement with the exptal value,

    BUT the approximation method required 1078!!!!! parameters to be inserted


    Zeno, this is the perfect example of the kind of equation pushing I'm talking about. They had to add 1,078 (unassigned) terms to their equation in order to match the experimental value. Well of course we would expect it to give the right value, even to a high degree of precision: the equation was developed precisely to match the experimental value!


    Mills' IE value differs by 0.0004% from the exptal value

    BUT requires a few fundamental physical constants rather than hundreds of fudge factor parameters.

    Clearly a huge improvement. But we must remember that 'fundamental physical constants' are also fudge factors, because almost without exception their meaning is unknown. As currently used by Mills and mainstream physics, a constant is simply a number that is used in order to make equations match experimental outcomes. That doesn't mean constants aren't useful, but if you don't know what they mean or why they need to be in the equation, then it's a theoretical dodge. Unfortunately we are so used to using constants as a crutch to understanding, that we have become blind to the fact that our theoretical understanding is severely handicapped.


    In contrast, Miles Mathis has explained and derived many of the constants used in our most fundamental equations, including: G (the gravitational constant), planck's constant, the fine structure constant (see links above), c (the speed of light), Coulomb's constant (see here, here, and here), the Cosmological constant, epsilon (the permittivity of the vacuum) and others. He doesn't use a constant unless he knows what it means and why it's in the equation.

  • joshg

    Thanks for taking the time to explain.

    I think I understand the difference between predictive accuracy (theorists) and measurement (experimenters). Interesting what you say about the way that theorists shoehorn the theory into the measurement.


    I merely mentioned that “QM is the most accurate theory …”. This is not me making the claim, it has been stated many times. When challenged I merely posted a link. There are many links to physicists explaining in what sense QED can be claimed to be the most accurate theory. They seem satisfied, personally I wouldn’t know.

    For me science is a wonder and an entertainment as I skim over the surface – in fact like most lay people.


    As I said in both posts previously, I do not pretend to understand the maths, as a tax payer I have trained physicists to do that for me.

    The problem, as you point out, is how much can we trust something if we do not have understanding? When I read the popular science books it is stated that the underlying theoretical explanation is mathematical and can only be approximated crudely in words.

    But then we have string theory which could turn out to be a generational, mathematical wild goose chase.

  • In contrast, Miles Mathis has explained and derived many of the constants used in our most fundamental equations, including: G (the gravitational constant), planck's constant, the fine structure constant (see links above), c (the speed of light), Coulomb's constant (see here, here, and here), the Cosmological constant, epsilon (the permittivity of the vacuum) and others. He doesn't use a constant unless he knows what it means and why it's in the equation.


    joshg : MM is quite entertaining for non physicists. I never found something new on his page, just rearranged, known formulas and a lot (huge pile) of text. But go on, most of it is sound and you will learn a lot.


    R.Mills GUT-CP is “new” physics. He explains why the electron g-factor is “anomalous” as is it must be and much more. His theory is a huge leap ahead, but still not the final step.

  • If we are comparing theories, personally I am rather taken with Hotson...


    http://blog.hasslberger.com/Diracs_Equation_Hotson_Part1.pdf


    An interesting perspective on how the dirac equations apply to open systems reflecting the emergence of PT symmetry breaking is provided here:


    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.00852

    Solitary waves of a PT-symmetric Nonlinear Dirac equation


    In an optical system where power is added to the system, PT symmetry is broken when the power level of the soliton reaches a critical level. At that critical point the optical soliton gains power exponentially. We know that in a whispering gallery wave, monopole magnetic field lines appear when PT symmetry breaks. We also know that LENR begins when the PT symmetry breaks. so it is important to understand how the PT symmetry power limit is reached and what happens when that limit is reached.


    The reference states


    Quote

    Notice that the charge of the new soliton is always higher than the charge of the initial one (see the oscillations of Fig. 4) and that the maximum charge increases with s. Interestingly, in all of these case examples we find that the (-independent) energy is very well conserved as is shown in Fig 5. When the maximum charge is above a threshold (this occurs for s & 0:995, i.e., for a deep quench), the frequency of the new soliton tends to zero and the solution starts to grow indefinitely as shown in Fig. 6. If a smaller value of 0 is taken, the same phenomenology persists, but the indefinite growth emerges for a smaller value of s. In Fig. 5 we have confirmed that both the energy conservation law and the moment equation (10) for the power are satisfied in our dynamics. The same is true for the case of Fig. 6 where the charge grows exponentially (in the case shown in the figure, for which

    s = 1, as exp(0:088t); although the characteristic growth rate depends on s). Here, the soliton does not collapse, as its shape and width are preserved during the growth. Again, this type of growth appears to be very different than, say, the collapse in the Hamiltonian NLS model [14]. In the latter, the width decreases and the amplitude increases, whereas here the entire solution grows without changing its spatial distribution.


  • MM is quite entertaining for non physicists.

    Well an astrophysicist who works at Johns Hopkins and NASA wrote the foreward to his first book, using words like "brilliant." So apparently some real, working physicists find more than entertainment in his work.


    In ever found something new on his page, just rearranged, known formulas and a lot (huge pile) of text.

    Then you clearly didn't get very far reading his work. In nearly every paper he has written he has either corrected and rewritten known formulas, completely overturned conventional scientific wisdom, or provided deep new insights into the known formulas and longstanding mysteries and paradoxes. Yes, I find all of that very entertaining, especially his withering criticism of mainstream physics.


    Edit: here is a great example I just found of him rewriting and explaining anomalous magnetic dipole moment formula: http://milesmathis.com/gf.pdf

  • I merely mentioned that “QM is the most accurate theory …”.This is not me making the claim, it has been stated many times. When challengedI merely posted a link. There are many links to physicists explaining in whatsense QED can be claimed to be the most accurate theory. They seem satisfied,personally I wouldn’t know.


    To be clear, I didn't mean to accuse you of bluster and propaganda. I knew you were just quoting the standard line. I was merely trying to show why it is bluster and propaganda. And yes, they do seem satisfied with their theory. It's the best they got (as far as we know). And of course they've also been hoodwinked by the bluster and propaganda of establishment physics -- it's very effective.


    Edit: I just found MM's paper explaining how the equation you mentioned (the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron) is pushed: http://milesmathis.com/gf.pdf

  • BLP update via yahoo 20th April

    [email protected] asked


    "In the latest BLP update there was this statement of achieved control of the temperature profile. Does anybody know what that means?"


    Randy Mills answered

    "The automated control of the molten silver levels of the dual molten silver injectors. The levels were controlled manually using visualization previously.

    This (manual control) is not possible in a closed system. The problem was actually challenging. The metal surface level is ill defined like the ocean. The flow is chaotic and random, 6000K plasma present, molten metal everywhere, huge noise and randomization of signal, huge temperature, pressure, RF fields, electrical pulses from ignition, can’t make penetrations; nothing conventional was used, not even X-ray sensing, thermal, back scattered neutrons, electrical parameters, acoustic, radar, ultrasound, laser, etc., etc. The solution works so beautifully."


  • Mills cannot make the method public before it is patented. However. you can reveal it as a speculation without an effect on Mills IP.

  • If we are comparing theories, personally I am rather taken with Hotson...

    This is very interesting, Alan. Thanks for sharing. I'm still trying to digest it. It seems he and Miles Mathis are in agreement on the absurd, illogical and unphysical nature of Quantum "Mechanics" and QED. But there is much they disagree about. Below I offer links to papers of Miles as points of comparison on specific issues:


    Hotson's theory appears to be based on Dirac's equation, which is a relativistic generalization of the Schrödinger wave equation. But Miles has shown that Schrodinger's equation has fundamental flaws, and so Dirac's relativistic derivation has those mistakes built into it as well since he never corrected them. In particular, the "negative energy states" that Hotson seems to build much of his theory on appear to me to be a product of those errors. In this paper, Miles pulls apart Schrodinger's equation and pieces it back together in a relativistic formula:


    http://milesmathis.com/se.pdf


    Here is another paper of his on the anomalous magnetic moment, which is relevant both to Dirac and the discussion in this thread:


    http://milesmathis.com/gf.pdf


    Both Hotson and Miles rail against 'fudge factors' in physics equations, but Hotson seems (at first glance) to find value in the use of i. Miles has argued that complex numbers are also used as a huge fudge factor. See the second part of this paper: http://milesmathis.com/euclid.html


    If we're going to use Ockham's (Occam's?) razor to decide things, then Miles even has Hotson beat: 1 fundamental particle (the photon) and two forces or fields:


    http://milesmathis.com/elecpro.html

    http://milesmathis.com/photon.html

    http://milesmathis.com/uft2.html


    Hotson also brought up pair production in his article. Here is Miles's paper on pair production, which assumes a solid knowledge of his theory but offers a tantalizing hint about 'fractionated' energy release in the final paragraph: http://milesmathis.com/spiral.pdf


    Hotson also brings in Zero-Point fluctuations or energy, which Miles has also written about: http://milesmathis.com/casimir.html


    As for the question of the aether, which Hotson also mentions, here are some papers of his on that topic, including his take on the Mickelson-Morley experiment:


    http://milesmathis.com/ether.html

    http://milesmathis.com/tesla.html

    http://milesmathis.com/mich.html


    And as a bonus, apropros of nothing other than proving Wyttenbach wrong, here is Miles's paper demystifying relativity:

    http://milesmathis.com/rel4.html


    Spoiler:

  • joshg


    Thank you, what an excellent overview. This caught my eye in the Mathis aether papers. It seems wrong somehow.


    'For example, if lightning strikes some traintracks in two different places, as Einstein imagines, and a device on a moving train on those tracks sees both, it can easily determine whether they were simultaneous or not, provided the device can also measure Doppler shifts accurately enough. Einstein states that the speed of the train will make simultaneous lightning strikes look non-simultaneous, and that the train cannot correct for this without knowing its own speed. But this is false. The shifts will automatically tell him relative speeds, allowing him to make all corrections. This is just the first suggestion that a sort of ether does exist, and that it is determined by c. The speed of light is itself a time setter, and in a sense an absolute time setter. '


    If the train can measure Doppler effects accurately, surely in doing so it has calculated its own speed in doing so.

  • If the train can measure Doppler effects accurately, surely in doing so it has calculated its own speed in doing so.

    Do mean that in calculating the relative doppler shifts, the train implicitly calculates its own speed in relation to the two lighting strikes? I'm not sure he would disagree with that. I think he's just saying that the train doesn't need to know its own speed prior to doing the calculations. But there is something I might be missing here. It's also possible that he's wrong on this. I think the man is a genius, but that doesn't mean he's infallible. But it would be wrong to jettison the life preservers with the ballast.


    I encourage you to read the link I provided at the end of my post to his gloss on relativity, because he has kind of a different take on it than I've seen elsewhere. It might help clear up this quandary you're having. It also includes a solution to the twins paradox just for fun.

  • Randy Mills answered: The solution works so beautifully."


    What is the solution?



    At the time I analysed the system, I found that adding a static magent field would solve quite many problems. Adding two more design tricks with the elctrode then most things are fine...


    But you must really understand what is going on inside the cell...

  • From Miles's paper on the anomalous magnetic moment:


    "So, rather than push that equation with manufactured loop corrections, we will correct it directly, by
    adding the charge field of the Earth back in. That should take the equation from a theoretical equation
    to an equation in a real field.

    "To do that, we have to realize that both e and h will be affected by the Earth's charge. In my paper on
    Millikan, I showed how the charge field of the Earth enters the equation for e, causing a .0973%
    change in e. That is, .009545/9.81 = .000973. We divide the Earth's charge by it's solo gravity to
    discover how much of the unified field is due to charge. That is our correction to e."

    This is pretty old stuff standard physics QED used 40? years ago as a first approach for the electron g-factor...

    So you want us to believe that 40-ish years ago somebody had already realized the Earth was emitting a charge field of real photons, calculated the field strength and used it to correct these equations? Nope. Sorry. Didn't happen. There is nothing standard here.

  • that Mathis site is very interesting indeed. Can't say I understand half of it but is very interesting.

    You said you have a background in engineering. That should be more than adequate to understand his work -- it's all very clearly explained and he prefers to keep the math as simple and straightforward as possible. It's more transparent and less fudge-able that way. But here is a paper on what causes rainbows that requires no math: http://milesmathis.com/rainbow2.pdf