SciPhysicsForums.com

Q-reeus wrote:Jay, it's been ~ 7 months since your last posting on viXra: http://vixra.org/abs/1609.0387
You know my prediction. How has it been traveling with submission(s) to mainstream journal(s)?

lkcl wrote:

Q-reeus wrote:You are enamored with that long-term scam-artist? My opinion on some of RM's erroneous beliefs:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=241&sid=54f13b506b0ecff60fe7d14db0092736#p6227 (and further down that thread)
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=51&p=5840#p5792 (and further down that thread)

Anyone with basic physics & engineering clues should soon realize just how hopelessly flawed as a technology is his latest blazing inferno incantation of 'boundless hydrino power' scheme. And that's allowing the underlying hydrino theory has a grain of truth to it.

ok so as you probably noticed i did not respond to you because i was so shocked by what you said that i thought it best to think over how best to respond.

before doing so, i will begin by saying "I Read What You Wrote In The Links That You Gave Above and..." the moment that it became clear, in both cases, that you had not read properly what Dr Mills has written, and, thus, i was able to confirm for myself that you've made an error of judgement, i stopped reading... but i *did read what you wrote*. whilst i appreciate that it is a fantastically overwhelming 1800 page document, you say in your second post "it is important to keep an open mind" yet hypocritically begin your paragraph above with the blanket and blatant statement involving the words "scam" and "artist", whilst *at the same time* accusing me of being both incompetent and incapable of independent thought, and, crucially, incapable of using a 25-year-established skill of "knowledge discernment and inference" on which i have successfully made my livelihood in the field of Reverse-Engineering and deep protocol analysis and security threat assessment.

what particularly pissed me off about your blatant accusation of incompetence on my part was that you did not begin with the words "I Read What You Wrote and....".

ANY acknowledgement of what i wrote would have been better than you beginning with a shocking accusation of complete incompetence in my core area of expertise: empirical deduction, cross-referencing and comprehensive analysis from zero prior knowledge, aka "Black Box Reverse-Engineering".

examples include:

* I Read What You Wrote and... i strongly disagree with it for the following reasons and would like to debate them with you because i am KEEPING AN OPEN MIND.

* I Read What You Wrote and... i am being tactful and diplomatic by asking you to clarify X Y and Z because I don't understand and am KEEPING AN OPEN MIND.

* I Read What You Wrote and... I am concerned at the discrepancy between my assessment of Dr Mills and your assessment of Dr Mills... could you elaborate on why you believe I should pay attention to his work, because i am KEEPING AN OPEN MIND in light of your clear excitement and belief that theres something important here.

the fact that you did not do so - instead loudly proclaimed by inference on a public forum that i must be incompetent - not only REALLY pisses me off but also allows me to go through the following logical assessment:

* this person showed good logical reasoning skills at the beginning of this thread, and seemed to be knowledgeable. assess and associate probability of them making useful statements that should be followed up, interact with them in a useful and productive way, spend time doing so: 0.9.

* this person then made indirect accusations that i am totally incompetent, as well as made blanket statements demonstrating a lack of open-mindedness, lack of attention to detail and a failure to be able to assess comprehensive and complex documents in a field that is outside of their direct and immediate area of expertise. i know from my own experience that i am NOT incompetent at black-box reverse-engineering and knowledge inference, therefore this person's assessment must be completely false instead. they're also incredibly rude (and probably don't even realise it), leaving me with very little desire to interact with them. CONCLUSION: reassess and associate probability of them making any useful statements in the past or in the future, or any interactions being enjoyable and fun and useful and productive: 1e-6.

notice that i have not assigned you a "zero" probability: that would be "certainty", and the one thing that i have learned from bob podolski's "bill of ethics" is: certainty is a PATHOLOGICAL state of mind.

now, i would say that in a peer-reviewed mainstream setting i would expect such closed-minded and pathological behaviour, but we are a small community of people who work *outside* of mainstream science for the most part, exploring things because we want to, without necessarily having funding (or being forced to drop ideas that we would really like to explore because it would be impossible to get funding for them), and pursuing them anyway because we LOVE to do so.

to witness close-minded and blatantly rude behaviour in this SMALL community has me deeply shocked and upset - hence why i did not respond for a long time as i had to think about what to say (and whether to say it at all). i trust, Q-reese, that you will realise the harm that you've done to yourself, to me, and to the reputation and nature of this forum through the inappropriate and unthinking words that you used.

Q-reeus wrote:You are enamored with that long-term scam-artist? My opinion on some of RM's erroneous beliefs:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=241&sid=54f13b506b0ecff60fe7d14db0092736#p6227 (and further down that thread)
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=51&p=5840#p5792 (and further down that thread)

Anyone with basic physics & engineering clues should soon realize just how hopelessly flawed as a technology is his latest blazing inferno incantation of 'boundless hydrino power' scheme. And that's allowing the underlying hydrino theory has a grain of truth to it.

Yablon wrote:

lkcl wrote:...
jay: a clue to follow up is to read Bracewell Chaper 12. the formula on page 241 (two-dimensional fourier transform) should be immediately recognised. it contains that all-familiar e^(-pi.xxxxx) as do the subsequent Hankel Transformations that Dr Mills successfully applies in GUTCP.

http://lkcl.net/reports/fine_structure_ ... Chap12.pdf

Luke, that link is not working. Thanks, Jay

lkcl wrote:...apologies to jay, but it's not easy, and it's not obvious, because the approach being taken by mainstream QCD (which jay is trying to replicate - apologies for pointing that out, jay) is completely wrong. if you examine dr randall mill's paper he explains that (just as jay does in a similar way) the electron g-factor is divided into several separate parts. what dr mills managed to do is: work out that those *are* entirely separate, and that they may be separated into entirely unrelated formula, then summed up. the sum therefore comprises *only four* terms, the first of which is "1.0", is incredibly simply, and comes ****EXACTLY***** repeat *****EXACTLY***** - i repeat again - ****EXACTLY**** to the current best-known experimentally-measured value for g/2.

the problem with the current approach being taken by mainstream QCD is that they attempt to use partial differentiation to calculate the (four) contributions all at once. using this (completely wrong) approach, when you *happen* to make some guesses and include a hell of a lot of postulation, you can pick some arbitrary magic constants that *happen* to give you the coefficients in the series, but there is absolutely ZERO real explanation for them. this should tell you everything that you need to know.

by contrast, dr mills has ALREADY BROKEN DOWN g/2 into its magnetic and electro-magnetic constituent parts, solved the equations from first principles based on low-level solutions to Maxwell's Equations, done the math and got the answer to within the current experimental uncertainty (somewhere around 11 to 12 d.p.)...

lkcl wrote:...
jay: a clue to follow up is to read Bracewell Chaper 12. the formula on page 241 (two-dimensional fourier transform) should be immediately recognised. it contains that all-familiar e^(-pi.xxxxx) as do the subsequent Hankel Transformations that Dr Mills successfully applies in GUTCP.

http://lkcl.net/reports/fine_structure_ ... Chap12.pdf

Q-reeus wrote:No matter how well your theory may tally with known values for particle self-interactions such as anomalous g-factor for electron, given the explicit predicted coupling to external charge distributions, it's there you will need to experimentally show a consistent physics exists. Which as we have gone over in this and earlier threads, should be relatively easy and low tech once the obvious choice of 'clock(s)' is made.

Yablon wrote:Also, Part III of my paper about the magnetic moment anomalies uses these to show that proof of this time dilation is already built in to the anomalies; the anomalies prove time dilation and are proportionate to the time dilation factor minus 1, see (13.16) and (14.1) of http://vixra.org/pdf/1609.0387v1.pdf. I have in effect proposed using the electron itself as a clock because it is already naturally charged and very light. And I have shown shown that when one does so, the time dilation is one plus the anomaly, .

Under and the the left of where you submit replies (save draft, preview, submit buttons) there are five boxes than can be checked. One says "Notify me when a reply is posted."

Q-reeus wrote:Jay,
What kind of clock? Mechanical oscillator (e.g. spring-flywheel), phase-locked crystal oscillator (e.g. digital watch), atomic clock e.g. Cesium, other?
...discussion about different clocks...

Q-reeus wrote:PS - once again, I was cut out of email notification re response to my previous post this thread!]

Yablon wrote:1) Take a neutral material body A that we can call a geometrodynamic clock insofar as it is emitting periodic signals. Place it in an external potential. Use another "lab clock" to track the signals from A, which to say, use a device that can record the color/frequency of light emitted by A. Then, simply charge up A with as much charge as you can get to stick, and see if the signals from A are redshifting slightly. The theory predicts time will dilate because of the self-repulsion within clock A, so this result would prove that, qualitatively.

2) Charge clock A and put it at a distance r from the source of the (point charge, Coulomb) potential. Measure the frequency of the signals from A. Then, without changing anything else, move the clock to 2r. The time dilation (over and above ) should be cut in half. Then move the clock to r/2. The time dilation over and above 1 should double. This would be a quantitative proof. Other variations would include doubling and halving the charge on the clock and showing a proportionate change in the time dilation over and above 1.

In all cases, the clock we charge up should be as light as possible because the magnitude of the time dilation effect grows inversely to the rest mass. Which you can think of as the inertial mass "resisting" the time dilation in a Newtonian a=F/m acceleration sense.

lkcl wrote:jay, i spoke to an engineering friend of mine: he says that the experiment, when it is carried out, may actually need to either be done in space, or at the north or south magnetic pole, *OR* that it may be necessary to use one of the machines that he is aware of which creates magnetic zero-point fields (a fancy word for saying that it measures the magnetic field then uses magnetic coils to counter-balance the detected fields so that they are all zero).

Q-reeus wrote:

Yablon wrote:Hi Jay,
Where do you obtain that position from? Above is afaik actually the opposite of standard position in the 'dressed' approach. Which is that the bare mass of a notional point electron is infinite (divergent self-field energy density and total energy as r -> 0), with the observed i.e. dressed mass far less than the former. See e.g.
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physf ... ctron.html
But I notice different attitudes to the 'dressed' formulation:
https://meopemuk2.blogspot.com/2006/07/ ... ch-to.html
Anyway, a classical analogy to 'dressed electron' is the electrostatic energy of a parallel plate capacitor in vacuo vs with a dielectric medium added. For fixed 'bare' plate charge, adding the dielectric 'dresses' the plates and reduces the net field energy by factor 1/k. Compensated for by the mechanical energy gain when inserting the dielectric. In the electron case, virtual particle dressing must become highly nonlinear at small r such as to increase the effective dielectric constant of quantum vacuum.

the link from Kevin wrote: In QED, things are analogous, though significantly more complex. Again the dressed electron state is stable and has trivial scattering behavior since there is no way to decay into other products without violating charge or 4-momentum conservation. Again, the dressing is generated by perturbation theory from undressed point particles satisfying the free Dirac and Maxwell equations.
This is the case even in the nice, infinity-free treatment of QED in
G. Scharf, Finite Quantum Electrodynamics: The Causal Approach, 2nd ed. Springer, New York 1995.
The difference of the treatment there to the usual treatment lies solely in the fact that he uses point particles with the physical masses and charges to start the perturbation theory, while the standard approach begins with bare particles of infinite mass and charge that are made finite only in a mathematically questionable renormalization procedure.