The conclusion and my assessment, in any case, is that Rossi has what he claims. First, nothing else makes sense.
Was that comment just trolling, or are you serious? How does it not make sense that he is either a fraud or in denial, and it doesn't work? How does it makes sense that he talks about his glorious team, manufacturing factory, highest echelon customers and partners, none of which can be located anywhere (Linked In, etc).
And what things has the con artist, er, Rossi told you privately that makes you believe him? I'd really like to know. You haven't sent him money yet, have you?
If the term refers to a bunch of disparate phenomena united only by the fact that they relate to nuclear phenomena at low energy, then all of these questions are meaningless in the aggregate and one should only ask questions about specific manifestations
Sorry IO but No. These questions are meaningful from a practical engineering perspective. Because if there exists a class of nuclear reactions at low energy, regardless of specific manifestation, they offer a more realistic chance of using nuclear for safe and inexpensive power generation. Discovering any one of them is replicable would open the door to research of others.
L'Hopital's rule result is valid
Martineau is saying that the conventional rationale for photon light speed is not valid.
Rest mass of a photon?
The nearest thing to a photon at rest in Mill's GUTCP is a trapped photon..
The trapping of photons allows us to see them with our retinas.
Its the energy exchange when a photon changes btw trapped and free which is more significant to us.
Mills has a whole section called the Equation of the Photon..
The speed appears to be a lot less than c in the simulations
What is most interesting to me is the new equations of motion, which show how the photon accelerates back to the speed of light, as that is the lowest energy state at v=c. As important, is that he says neutrinos are the same class of particle as a photon. And since they have only been observed traveling at the speed of light and are now known to have mass, it shows mainstream physicists are ignoring this huge contradiction. Their only excuse could be that neutrinos are going "very close but not exactly" the speed of light but no experiment shows this, and even if true, why are there never any slow neutrinos found?
I don't know if this theory or paper has been discussed before on this board, but I found it fascinating, If true it helps explain some intractable problems with observations about Neutrinos (how can they have mass as proven by oscilations, yet seem to travel only at the speed of light within any measurable precision), as well as give some theoretical understanding of photon behaviour (photon self propulsion, where the photon has the highest at "rest" so accelerates rapidly to c, a lower energy state) (eq. 10-13).
I was particularly interested in the discussion of how appying l'Hopitals rule to the equations proves that if a photon has no mass, it's energy is zero (eq. 8 and 9).
I would LOVE some comments with those more knowledgeable about physics and the math than me to show me why this paper is wrong. By wrong I mean the math is wrong or there is direct experimental evidence clearly nullifying the hypothesis.
Please no arguments like "physicists know everything, and they don't like this idea." I also like it because even I can understand the math, at least I think I do.
Starting with light: it doesn't curve because it follows the curvature of spacetime. That’s a myth. Einstein never said that. He said: “the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable”
Very interesting and great link to the Einstein paper. The rest of that paragraph is even more fascinating. So the whole idea of curved spacetime was fabricated by subsequent physicists?
I am curious if he perhaps later came up with this concept?
More of the quote from Einstein (without the spaces, apparently when copying text about space-time, space is eliminated):
That's ONE, not "1. >5"
Are you sure? He can't even answer a multiple choice question clearly.
I guess it could be worse, he could have just said "Yes" again.
But I guess that is part of his brilliance, as WCG espouses?
Sven should ask again like this:
Dear Andrea Rossi,
We now know the number must be less than 25 regardless of the interpretation of your answer.
Can you select from below how many E-CatSK are now installed?
Mills solution for Hydrogen is pretty much identical to the QM solution only the interpretation is much different. Mills solution for the electron is quite different, but also misses the true 4D structure what is the main reason he cannot explain more than QM.
The true dark side of physics is QED/QCD/QFT (CERN, ITER, APSPEcT,..) , where the use of QM-math to model dense matter interaction is absolutely nonsensical. But here Mills has no alternative and no concept as he failed to draw the right conclusions.
In classic QM spin is a binary concept. With SO(4) physics spin has to be split for concrete calculations. Do not expect to gain much without digging deeper than Mills already did.
Finding an exactly fitting model for the free & bound electron & locked in photons would help much more.
Have you ever contacted Mills about your corrections to his theory? A long time ago I asked him a question on the BLP website and he did respond. I think it is worth a try to tell him about your work.
a force proportional to the force that the Niagara Falls would unleash upon an umbrella.
Rossi knows this force of Niagara Falls through direct measurement. He measured it with a 1 ohm resistor.
Snark all you like, PFD. The fact is that all these technologies work and utilize the same primary mechanisms.
Rossi's system definitely uses a different mechanism, which is pure BS. Lumping him in with everyone else is perjury.
I understand the attempt at sarcasm, but equating everyone making excess energy claims with the unmentionable Italian, ends becoming tasteless.
True, I was just trying to make fun or Rossi. I will apologize to Mills, who has a chance of success.
So in short it was new design that worked well but there were problems that will take time to fix. Sounds vaguely familiar.
I hear that the industrialization of the SunCell is delayed due to a backlog at both the puppet show vendor and campy jingle writer. Also Mills last minute attempt to replace the metal box with blue plastic causes it to melt even sooner. Mills plans to use the delays to his advantage, and develop a brand new ssm version, by working very hard. I knew Mills should not have used Rossi's recommendations.
Never give up.
Sam, what was this crucial point? And why did his latest posts become more negative after this point? Was this crucial point the point at which he realized his garbage doesn't work? What happened to the industrialization of the SK and current customers? I think it is about time to launch a new version of the ecat, with a brand new clock reset. Perhaps this one will be anti-gravity propulsion.
I just want to thank everyone for contributing to the theoretical discussion here. I love that people like THHuxleynew and Wyttenbach can get together and argue, er, exchange ideas with us all, and we can try to figure out who is right. But I bet you both are mostly right, as we will find out later. I feel like new math like SO(4) can solve some of the long standing problems of the SM.
Geeze. I just looked at this poll result again from the end of 2018 and it seems like so little progress on so many fronts. Atom Ecology? GEC? IH? BLP? The Japanese stuff? Have any of these had any new announced accomplishments? Now if Rossi were on the list, we could talk. He is 20 years ahead you know and he has had 2 new iterations of his magnificence already this year. 🤣
Sam, here are some great places for you to meet other very open minded individuals like yourself.
Needless to say these club members are also the most intelligent and educated our world has to offer (almost Rossi-like, except without the god-like looks)
This "genius" thing is already my pet peave. Newton, yes. Maxwell, yes. Mozart and Beethoven, yes. Benjamin Franklin, maybe (well his dealings with the ladies and diplomacy counts). Rossi? I want to throw up now.