On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 5:25 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > In reply to James Bowery's message of Tue, 29 Jul 2014 22:10:04 -0500: > Hi, > [snip] > >Perhaps I should restate the 2 miracles along a slightly different axis: > > > >1) If one adopts Storms's viewpoint, there is no scientific revolution -- > >merely a different interpretation of accepted theory. So the "miracle" of > >a technology so revolutionary that it reconfigures the origin of human > >social organization (the campsite fire) is not compounded by a revolution > >in accepted theory -- merely revolution in the *interpretation* of > accepted > >theory. Mills is applying Ockham's Razor to surgically remove the > >equivalent of a brain tumor on the body of accepted theory that has grown > >up over the last century, and then reinterpreted what was left to more > >accurately fit facts that were in evidence before the F&P phenomenon. > > Other scientific revolutions were not really this revolutionary, eg. the > >removal of the epicycles by Copernicus, the unification of light, > >electricity and magnetism by Maxwell, the incorporation of momentum into > >the physical state by Newton, etc. provided not nearly such a profound > >reduction of theoretic cancer and weren't even motivated by a great > >technological utility that needed to be explained. The combination of > such > >a technological leap -- not in instrumentation but in useful phenomenon -- > >and such a profound reduction of theoretic cancer is unprecedented. > > I assume you are implying that it's a miracle that a true genius > occasionally > comes along, but I think that it is actually statistically likely. I guess > it > remains to be seen whether or not Mills fits the bill. >
No of course a Newton, Maxwell, etc comes along once a century or so. That's not what I'm talking about. Its more like someone accidentally discovers steam power but can't really reproduce it because Newton's laws of mechanics had been buried in ad hoc nonsense for a century -- and then James Watt not only invents the steam engine but comes up with Newtonian mechanics to make the phenomenon reproducible and commercializable. >2) The conflation of not one but two entirely different energy sources -- > >either of which would provide the profound technological utility. > > This is not a miracle if one enables the other, which in this case is also > likely. I.e. if Hydrinos are real, then it's highly likely that they will > lead > to enhanced nuclear reaction rates, due to enhanced tunneling rates at > closer > proximity (hence the conflation). > Really? Given Mills's claims for more tractable mathematical modeling it seems he should have quantitative predictions about these tunneling events and should be making the corresponding measurements in his burns.
