On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 10:57 AM Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> wrote:
> The reviews of Randall Mills's book are not so charatable. > https://sjbyrnes.com/cf/grand-unified-theory-of-classical-physics/ > Better still, note that the American Physical Society managed the unprecedented(?) <https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/109/44/2522808/> feat of getting the US Patent Office to rescind an already issue letter of patent issued to Mills by throwing a barrage of assertions at it, including that it fell under "cold fusion" and "perpetual motion". Individually they would have fallen to the floor but collectively, despite being clearly false, they stuck and the resulting stigma provided cover that the court upheld. You'll find people piling on to this monkey beat by citing the court case's mention of "perpetual motion" and claiming that Mills's theory post-dated some apocryphal charlatanism by Mills in which Mills was getting investors for a perpetual motion machine. In psychological warfare, one can see this tactic at inciting mob psychology at work in the old media's aspersions about President Trump. It should be noted that there is no justification for denying a patent, already issued or not, on the basis that it "violates consensus scientific theory." The gating requirements are merely that it be reduced to practice, novel (creative spark) and useful. Oh, and I almost forgot: The Nobel Prize winning physicist and future head of Obama's DoE called Mills a fraud: "it's extremely unlikely that this is real, and I feel sorry for the funders, the people who are backing this." Quote from Steven Chu, Nobel Prize-winning physicist at Stanford University Former Secretary of Energy (January 20, 1999 – April 22 2013) Quoted September 1999 Extracted from Dow Jones NewsWires - October 1999 http://www.rexresearch.com/millshyd/millshyd.htm#dow The reason this is calling Mills a fraud is that the levels of energy gains his company was reporting were large enough that they would be easily distinguishable from measurement error and multiple people in the company had attested to those levels. No wiggle room for, "But I did my *best* to control for those errors, judge. HONEST MISTAKE!!!" At present probably most of the crew at BrLP should be summarily thrown in the slammer for criminal fraud, based on the levels of power he's reporting <https://brilliantlightpower.com/suncell-molten-metal-calorimeter-results/>, if the device doesn't actually work. Any physicist from Princeton could take a long lunch, take the 15 minute drive to BrLP's lab, walk in with little more than an IR meter while a student watches the external electric meter as the first, low risk/cost ratio, in a series of investigatory steps. A founder of the DoE's Energy Information Administration (the same guy who funded the revival of connectionism in the '80s) and I were putting together a more extensive test of Mills's honesty a few years ago. He wanted to get one of the most skeptical engineers he knew (Keith Henson) to come up with an estimate of how much money it would cost to pay a visit to BrLP's labs and exclude all the extraordinary lengths to which a fraud artist taking in $100M in investments might go. I asked Mills if we could have permission to do such a skeptical investigation and he said yes provided we signed an NDA. Keith came back with an estimate of $100k for the test -- an amount we did not have handy. This point of that soliloquy is that a fraudulent Mills, even covered by an NDA, would be subject to prison because fraud vitiates all agreements and there can be no middle ground here. He's not mistaken about his claims. He's either real or he's a fraud. > > I could decide for myself but I'm not going to pay $1187. > https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Unified-Theory-Classical-Physics/dp/0963517147 > It's free at this download. <https://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/theory/GUT-CP-2018-Ed-Book-Web.pdf> However, since the credibility of Mills is the present issue -- not his theory -- I would direct any immediate interest in his theory to the paper by a respected MIT physicist upon which he based his theory: On the radiation from point charges by H. A. Haus <https://www.dropbox.com/s/0wpcgh1nyyj6v8i/HausHA_OnTheRadiationFromPointCharges_1986_Mit_646k.pdf?dl=0> Mills was Haus's student and claims that upon showing Haus how Mills covered QM with radiationless extended charge current configurations of point charges comprising the electron, Haus agreed with the math but was receiving a lot of acolytes for that paper and didn't want to be the focus of what, obviously, emerged with Mills's publication of the GUToCP. > Mills is a medical doctor, not a physicist. > https://www.nature.com/articles/336787a0 > I admit I have my own theories about physics but lack the background to > prove them. For example, I think that an observer falling into a black hole > and nearing the event horizon would see an expanding and accelerating > universe. The event horizon would appear to wrap around due to > gravitational lensing. We already know that objects near the horizon would > appear to slow down and be red shifted. It would explain both dark energy > and inflation without the need for any new physics. Dark energy is just > gravity. The nonuniformity in the cosmic background radiation is due to the > big bang starting from a small but not pointlike mass as it collapsed from > an even larger universe. My motivation is that Einstein derived general > relativity based on the local continuity of space-time, which would > prohibit a sharp event horizon or a big bang singularity. > > The theory could be proven by finding the "hole" in the event horizon, > possibly the CMB cold spot behind the Eridanus void, the biggest empty > space in the universe. But I lack the math skills to solve this "inside > out" black hole model of the universe from Einstein's equations for general > relativity. > > On Mon, Oct 7, 2019, 12:02 AM James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 11:29 AM James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> ... >>> If one takes Randell Mills's "Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics" >>> seriously (and I do) he has, even *without* the above ansatz, has >>> calculated an amazing array of physical properties >>> <http://www.millsian.com/summarytables/SummaryTables022709S.pdf> from >>> "fundamental constants only" and IIRC the number of such constants is >>> smaller than in the Standard Model. I'll try to look up what that reduced >>> set of constants is and provide it along with a formulary deriving other >>> constants of the Standard Model. >>> >> >> That set of constants is (according to Page 41, of GUToCP Volume 1 (2018 >> edition) <https://brilliantlightpower.com/book/>, Foundations): >> >> - G >> - The spin of the electron neutrino. >> - The fundamental constants that comprise the fine structure >> constant: >> - *µ0* >> - *e *(charge of an electron) >> - *c* >> - *h* >> >> However, the competition is not string theory nor the Standard Model per >> se, but QED+GR because GUToCP purports to cover those theories and >> calculate their parameters from the above parameters to the formulas given >> in the book, some of which are old standards, such as ε0 = 1/(*c*² >> *µ0).* >> > *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery > options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T8eabd59f2f06cc50-M01649133c86d5d6e131a1035> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T8eabd59f2f06cc50-M6b58a8679a8ac4f5b7f7aca8 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
