Probably the lack of daylight too Timo
Well I can't find a good external source of any arguments about there being too many fudge factors. In fact most articles seem to refer to the so-called 'measurement problem', which is pretty much what that video above is all about.
And then there's the orbitsphere, which gives the impression of being unphysical.
I guess the smiley face is due to the other side containing even bigger apparent oddities?... Like Shroedingers Cat for starters.
Edit: ...Which 'your' Transactional Interpretation seems to take care of, amongst other things: http://faculty.washington.edu/…int/Westport_20110420.ppt
Are you talking about this?... Opinions on BLPs molecule results
Seems that the conclusion is: 'there are basically no fudge factors in the QED predictions of nuclear masses'? But whether that's really the same thing is beyond my ken.
...Much like every model of the
universe in history, and probably hence!
Copenhagen is one of several understandings of QM (one I'm not particularly sympathetic to), and I never got the impression that multiverses is a necessary consequence of QM. There is, for example, the transactional interpretation of QM (different from Copenhagen) as well as the de Broglie-Bohm theory. I think there are others as well. (I'm not clear on the relationship between multiverses and Copenhagen.)
Maybe? Pretty much my only source of information is this (highly recommended) documentary...
And I watched it a long time ago...
The quick version: https://www.scientificamerican…e/hugh-everett-biography/
I think multiverses are a solution to well-known(?) problems with the Copenhagen Interpretation, a fundamental part of QM?
But you beg the question as to why there are even philosophical preoccupations in the first place? ...No philosopher seems to stuggle over General Relativity, for example.
And at risk of derailing the thread, it seems to me that if QMers are having to posit things like multiverses and their ilk, my intuition says it's time for them to find a better rabbit-hole to go down ....Although I'm happy to be told why I'm wrong.
And I get that the universe doesn't necessarily have to work in an easily understandable way - But a separate universe spawned by each quantum event? Really?! How big do the underlying issues have to be, to end up with that as your potential solution?
That is the argument but it is untrue, based on a time long ago when we did not have the computational power, and numerical analysis sophistication, to do the (real) calculations properly. They are deliciously accurate, no tweaks. And Mills' results are not so accurate.
I'm the first to admit I don't have a clue about QM, beyond the very basics, but my limited understanding is that many empirically determined constants have been added, which if true, could be considered as 'post-hoc tweaks'? (ie. propping up an increasingly abstract construction)
Isn't the argument that's Mills' work provides a higher level of accuracy too? And without a bunch of constants/ post-hoc tweaks.
To be fair, isn't that how theories normally work? At first, at least.
The O had better not stand for Orgone.
"To be in LENR, one has to have an open mind and be prepared to take all inputs and filter out the nonsense."
Flaky is the right word. I assess Mills purely on the basis of 20+? years without anything to show for it = something wrong.
I was going to add the 30?m dollars he's
earntreceived, but compared to other possibly-optimistic startups*, I guess that isn't all that much.
edit: Also, publishing your 600+ page thesis on why the last 50+ years of physics is wrong - without a fancy experimental proof - is a pretty ballsy move, to say the least.
We are yet to see Musk's textbook on Rocket Science, for example.
to answer the question of how much energy is put out by the system, derive the power from the slope of a very brief impulse in an optical detector and then extrapolate. The very short rise time and high slope are the basis for the conclusion that the output power is greater than <fill in some mind-boggling phenomenon>.
Seems an odd way of doing it: Isn't wavelength (i.e. energy?) x [edit: divided by] duration of flash = power
Aaaah, if only. 'Tet' and 'Trike' are both banned in the EU. We ended up with too much in the water-table. 'Perk' is the only one left now. As for Methylene Chloride...in yer dreams!
I'm betting even P's spraycan has been in his garage for quite a few years...
Whats the rough dimensions of those diamonds?
Of course it works... Fulvio just needs to flick his switch and it works every time.
I guess you would know.
Wow. I've never seen someone work so hard to disguise and camoflauge a blatant series of sly insults with skillful wordmanship.
I guess you've not been here that long...
Ultimately not all of my camouflaged constructive criticisms were aimed at you... I have little doubt about your technical aptitude, and the ufo gun-cam footge shouldn't be dismissed. I'm just naturally wary of people who claim to have all the answers. You post some interesting links, and have formed on the surface a semi-reasonable argument, I think, but I don't think it's helpful, on several levels, to give the appearance of being what I mock above.
If you're going to do something, do it well. And leave something witchy.
There's nothing wrong with holding ideas 'contrary to the established paradigm'.
But let's face it, another outcome of this 'wasted century' of computer technology is that any nutter allowed access to a keyboard can, and in most cases does, have an audience for their crazed ideas.
So the real question becomes: How does the average reader discern which writers are possibly insane? My basic strategies are:
...Does the person offer a cohesive argument, or are they just linking unrelated phenomena together in a bid to create an overarching schizophrenic-like narrative.
...Does the person demonstrate technical or experimental skills that suggest a certain level of scientific aptitude, or are they just recycling what they read on PESN, some UFO website, InfoWars etc.
...Is their take on the scientific method merely that of a maverick, or do they actively seek to undermine it, for example with the quotation I linked to above. Repeated here in full, to demonstrate the kind of mental gymnastics required to support your position as being somewhat reasonable:Quote
Although to state certainty without running multiple tests isn't ideal , it sure looks like we now understand the keys to ultra-high powered, spheromak stimulated LENR .
...Does a person seem to display the Koreshian/Manson-esqe 'qualities' of trying to draw others in to their ways of thinking. Do they appear to want to position themselves as some kind of leader. Perhaps in the hope people will look up to them as their oracle.
...And finally, do they have a love of unique acronyms, much like the actor - and famed helmet-less motorcycle accident victim - Gary Busey.
Essentially you are setting off my personal bullshit meter at the highest levels. Whilst I was grateful for the brief distraction of learning about spheromaks, I think the rest of your theories are unproven and highly spectulative. At best.
And I think that deep down, you understand this. So why are you so sure they are true? And why offer definitive statements about the supposed veracity, that only have the effect of turning people away, on the entirely reasonable grounds of "watch out, just another crank with a loose grip on reality"...
Anyway, some bold ideas are contained above, all because you basically appear to have little personal doubt about your own theories. Maybe just a dose of humility is in order... Perhaps for both of us... Or not.
Always top of the list,
Of 'who was online',
Researching 'elf and safety,
On the government's dime.
Ignores what he don't like,
Cherry-picks till he's pleased,
Has poor grasp of thermodynamics,
Preferring zoological theories.
Oh, that shattered utensil...
A fully fragmented crock!
A receptacle of certainty,
For his neglected schlock.
Libelled left, right and centre,
Maybe a suit will be hence,
Until a lawyer reminds him,
That the truth is a defence.
Sorry but a quick googling found nothing... I believe the Mills patent increased the resolution of early MRI scanners with some kind of mathematical transfer. I assume he made enough money to stop working as a doctor, but how much of the above is rumour/ imagination is unknown...
So what's all this blether then?...
As part of my job, to evaluate the potential of a safety problem, I study the CFers' claims and sometimes write up my results. No funds allocated for that other than my salary, which I earn not by looking into CF, but by getting job assignments and completing them satisfactorily.
As I've said before, I work with almost all the materials people talk about in the LENR field, and if LENR is true, I need to know. It involves my and my coworkers safety.
If the proposed hypothesis of LENR is correct, there is a derived safety issue for any use of metal hydrides. which threatens my safety and the safety of my coworkers directly. I am ethically bound to investigate that. Can you understand the ramifications of not doing so? "Well, Shanahan knew it might 'go nuclear' but he didn't like that idea and never told anyone. If he had though we might have prevented that explosion and radioactive material release..."
The 3-8C daily swing in ambient at his lab and airbox solution didn't help.
I've never quite understood why this should be a problem? The calorimeter is meausuring a temperature rise... exhaust minus ambient equals rise...
By the way, the other thing bo and Zeus need to do to demonstrate they have comprehended what I am saying is to do a 'military repeat-back'
So... to summarise: If you assume that in this case the relative error is 10%, and then state you are uninterested in any experiment with a result less than 5 times higher than your assumed relative error, then you don't have to endure your colleagues laughter when you say their hydrogen storage methods are potentially unsafe, in your next health and safety report.
I get the feeling he doesn't want to answer your question Bocijn. I wonder why someone would spend time writing that many paragraphs instead of just giving a straight answer?
Green ink, 21 posts up...