• 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...


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


    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


    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:


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


    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:




    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:




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



  • 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