Bill wrote:First off, several associates pointed out that the “erroneous” diagram 107 that was so heavily criticized could not be found! Here is one comment: “neither the page labeled as 107 in its corner, nor the 107th from the start of Volume I (including front-matter pages labeled stuff like "iv") have figures of the photon. He should *read* Chapter 4 (Equation of the Photon) and look at figures 4.1 through 4.7.”
Well Bill, I thought it obvious my referencing was to the pdf article linked to as
http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-conte ... ionPt1.pdfin your post of Nov 19:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=51&start=100#p5790Here's the relevant passage again from my post
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=51&start=100#p5792I began a skim through the linked pdf article. Not happy initially that a number of equation entities were never defined. However, pp 107-110 (according to my Foxit pdf Reader): The Field of the Photon Observed from the Laboratory Frame is where Mill's GUT of CP theory obviously starts falling apart for me. In fact just p107 sealed it (p108 being a useless and misleading distraction). See if you can guess why (hint: he claims full consistency with special relativity).
That passage is accurate re
logical page #'s I gave, and reference to relevant figure. The cited pdf article itself has NO page or figure numbering or best I could see any equation numbering - a very poor show and not my fault!
Second, here is an edited-for-brevity set of comments that catch the ‘flavor’ of the group’s response:
“Dr. Mills isn't saying that it's possible for a photon (or its fields) to be at rest. Those figures show what the EM fields would look like if you could be in the *photon's inertial reference frame* (which of course you can't be). The photon's wavelength is the diameter of its EM field orbitsphere and its frequency is the number of times a second that the overall E field vector (or equivalently the B field vector) completes a 360 degree rotation (see Figures 4.5 and 4.6)...
On the assumption your above previously cited pdf is an accurate subset of larger article 'Volume I', all I need do is refer to the rhs figure on (logical) p107. Labelled with 'Time axis' and 'toward the observer'. It's clear from that illustration the photon fields, in observer rest frame, have substantial extent along the propagation axis (arrow shown). It follows from Lorentz transformations that 'what photon would look like in its inertial rest frame' is an entirely vanished entity - infinitely extended thus infinitely diluted thus no energy-momentum or fields whatsoever there. Fundamental to the very concept of massless Boson is that not only can't one
be in the (non-existent) rest frame of a massless Boson, it's equally absurd to even
imagine that (im)possibility as thought experiment. As I explained previously. Getting that wrong may not of itself be fatal to the rest of his theory, but a frank admission of conceptual error is preferable to weasel words intended to save face.
...Since the photon travels at c, in the lab frame we see relativistic length contraction *such that the photon appears "flat" in the axis of propagation.*...
“Note that in this lab reference frame view that the photon (pair) appears to have zero extent in the direction of propagation due to relativistic length contraction (just like in Mills' Figures 4.5 & 4.6).“
See my last comments above - according to the rhs figure I referred to, Mill's photon most certainly and obviously is far from having zero axial extent. Calling black white doesn't make it so. And even if, contrary to the rhs figure, 'zero axial extent' in observer frame were true, it implies an infinitely thin pulse having an infinite Fourier frequency spectrum such that talk of a definite photon 'frequency' would be nonsensical.
[Also, axial spatial extent is explicitly given in the wave equations for E & H shown on (logical) p109.]
Third, and most important, physics is an empirical science, so reproducible experimental evidence trumps any wiggling around about theoretical semantics.
There are *many* reproducible experimental results in top-tier journals that defy explanation in quantum theory, but are *predicted* by GUT-CP. These include *many* experiments that yield unexplained (by current physics and QM) excess heat. In addition. And, within the last year, in-house and public demonstrations have shown a dramatically new configuration that generates enormous amounts of light that can be captured by conventional Solar Cells and turned directly into electricity.
This technique has not, AFAIK, been independently replicated. Engineering (as opposed to R&D) work is currently in process.
One of the group added, WRT independent verifications: “I link a ton of such evidence in my comments in that awful Forbes blog post from 6 months ago here:
http://goo.gl/XTXczp http://goo.gl/XTXczp
I grant the possibility that, despite many sceptics claims of incompetence and/or fraud, he may have discovered something real that lacks any explanation within standard QM/QFT. What dulls that is the decades long claims of imminent practical hydrino-physics almost-free energy devices that, notwithstanding radical design changes, just never quite come to fruition. Why not? What also of the radical new hydrino-based compounds with amazing properties that similarly never quite make it to market?
If Q. would wish to continue this discussion, I believe it might be better to start an entirely new thread, since the contents here have drifted dramatically from the double slit.
I'll leave that perogative to you. In passing, having previously given scant attention as to whether his e.g. H atom electron shell 'orbitsphere' derivation is self-consistent with stated uniform areal charge density, it has just occurred to me the answer is surely no. A complex arrangement of crisscrossing orbitsphere currents imo cannot allow it. The sole current distribution compatible with uniform shell charge density being that generated by a spinning spherical shell of charge - with proviso angular velocities maybe a function of latitude but not longitude. Just how such an entity could be mechanically stable via classical physics alone is beyond me.