Dave Fafarman | 1 Feb 01:09 2003

Re: No Joke, Dr. Mills

dmcmahon wrote:

<< One other poster wondered why "otherwise intelligent" people believed in entanglement. Well the
answer is that entanglement is a proven experimental fact.>>

The problem is not the observations; it is the interpretation of the observations.

Earth-based astronomical "observations" fully support Ptolemy's epicycles. They only run afoul of
Occam's Razor.

-- Dave Fafarman

sig5534 | 1 Feb 12:01 2003

Re: Big Trouble for BlackLight Power?

>> On the 30 January, 2003 show Dr Stephen Greer
>> announced that he had seen a 'free energy source'
>> demonstration that met his criteria.

He has made this same statment about 6 times before and later 
retracked each and everyone saying: "Oh it turned out to be 
nothing". Greer has no idea what a free energy device is, looks 
like, or how to evaluate it.

>> I have followed Greer for as long as I have followed HSG.
>> He has been very transparent and I have never heard him say
>> anything that I have found to be in error. 

You need to pay closer attention. He has said many things that were 
in error. He is very good at keeping your eye OFF the ball. In fact 
he is the king of overstatement. Whatever Greer says you can apply 
a correction factor of zero.

>> This is very timely. Take it for what it is worth.

It's not worth anything. I talked to his "VP of Projects" in the 
past and they have no idea what they are doing. They have no 
scientists or engineers involved that have experience in any of the 
subject matter.

I pressed them on exactly what projects they have that show even the 
slightest serious prospects - they have none. They are on a fishing 
expedition to try and find one. They have nothing.

Chris. (BSEE)
(Continue reading)

Peter Zimmerman | 1 Feb 04:27 2003

(unknown)

Dave Fafarman wrote:

> Earth-based astronomical "observations" fully support Ptolemy's epicycles.
> They only run afoul of Occam's Razor.

Sorry. Earth-bound observations do NOT support Ptolemy's epicycles. You're forgetting the precession
of the perihelion of Mercury, the discovery of satellites around Jupiter, the perturbations by Uranus on
the orbit of Saturn, etc. They don't even (quite) get the motion of Mars exactly.

What you thought you were saying is that pre-telescopic and pre-Tycho Brahe earth-bound observations
were consistent with the Ptolemaic theory. Once Tycho did the work on the orbit of Mars, the Ptolemaic
theory could not fit the data.

pz

John Barchak | 1 Feb 02:08 2003

Re: No Joke, Dr. Mills

--- In hydrino@..., "mcmahon8888
<dmc74965 <at> a.yahoo.invalid>" 
<dmc74965 <at> a.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

> --- In hydrino@..., "R. Wormus" <protech <at> f.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > All theory aside, why are you quick to accept the results this 
> > entanglement experiment while rejecting all of the BLP experiments? 
> > What can be a cleaner display of a large dramatic effect than the 
> > Balmer line broadening in the H2/HE plasma. I find it the lack of 
> > interest truly amazing.
> 
> I don't necessarily accept the results of this particular experiment 
> until it has been duplicated by others. 
> 
> However generally speaking I accept the results because entanglement 
> has been confirmed thousands of times by multiple experimenters 
> across the globe. While there is lots of argument about what it all 
> means, I don't think there are many professional physicists that 
> doubt entanglement is a real effect. One other poster wondered 
> why "otherwise intelligent" people believed in entanglement. Well the 
> answer is that entanglement is a proven experimental fact. 
> 
> I do not accept Mills' results because 1) There are simpler 
> explanations that explain away all of Mills spectroscopy claims 
> without violating known laws of physics and 2) There cannot be 
> a "state below the ground state" without completely unraveling 
> quantum mechanics. 
> 
> Its a safe bet any theory or claim that would completely unravel 
(Continue reading)

John Barchak | 1 Feb 16:20 2003

Saturday Morning Serial - HUP

Up until the late 1800s, the measurements that man made were generally adequate to the purpose of the
measurement. The measurements made on wood were adequate to the purpose of building a house.

Then man decided to investigate the world of the very small. The Atomic Theory was being developed and the
measurement of very small objects became anecessity.

During the first quarter century of the 1900s, physicists struggled 
with the problem of never knowing everything about anything that was 
atomic sized. If you tried to know the position of a particle 
exactly, then you would know almost nothing about it's momentum. If 
you tried to know the time of an event exactly, then you would know 
almost nothing about the location of the event. There seemed to be 
something at work that made the physical world of atoms extremely 
fuzzy. The usual combination of theory and experiment did not seem 
up to the task of describing the atomic world.

Episode V HUP

It is March, 1927, and Werner Heisenberg ponders the veil that seems 
to shroud atomic physics. What is the nature of the veil. Is it 
the act of measuring that causes the uncertainty? There seemed to 
be couples of measurement that were particularly troublesome; 
position and momentum being a prime example. Heisenberg is going to 
publish a paper on atomic uncertainty, and he creates a "Gedanken" 
(thought) experiment involving a special microscope that has a 
wavelength control that allows him to chose the wavelength of the 
electromagnetic waves that bounce off of an electron. It is clear 
that the shorter wavelengths allow the greater accuracy in 
determining the position of the electron, but the shorter wavelengths 
have a higher energy and, therefore, more greatly disturb the 
(Continue reading)

Mike Carrell | 1 Feb 18:03 2003

It Ain't Necessarily So - Part 1

My theme song for this thread is from Gershwin's "Porgy and Bess", where
Sportin' Life questions Biblical authority by citing the stories of Jonah
and the Whale, Methuselah, and Lil' David. There will be several parts.

------------------------

Charles Pibel has mounted another critique of Mills' work in a style which
is similar to the N2 affair. He has found an apparent spectroscopic match to
the data of Figs. 24-26 and dismisses any difficulties as errors in the JY
spectrophotmeter, inadequate calibration, laboratory procedure, etc. He does
not adequately study the description of the experiment to see if his
proposal is plausible. This was the case with the N2 affair, and in the end
his hypothesis failed both on physical plausibility that N2 could have been
present in observable quantities, and in specroscopic evidence as well. I
have discussed this at length privately with Charles and can present a
capsule summary of my argument if necessary.

With respect to the present case, I quote from his recent posts:

-------------------------

My explanation requires that Mills, et al. are still having
difficulties with the calibration of their spectrometer. I don't
know what they are doing wrong, but I do believe that they
are !!>>still<<!! doing something wrong.

----------------------

>From what I have read, CN is very easy to make, in a microwave
discharge, and you only need nitrogen and a hydrocarbon. The
(Continue reading)

mcmahon8888 | 1 Feb 19:40 2003

Re: No Joke, Dr. Mills

--- In hydrino@..., "John Barchak
<jbarchak3 <at> c.yahoo.invalid>" 
<jbarchak3 <at> c.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

> I will prove to you quantum entanglements are an illusion of SQM.

Experiment proves entanglement is real and Bells inequality is 
violated. Aspects first experiment showed Bells inequality was 
violated by 9 standard deviations. Refinements that allowed more 
detailed observations in his second experiment showed bells 
inequality was violated by 40 standard deviations. Later experiments 
by Mandel and people such as Shih showed even more dramatic effects, 
with violations of 100 standard deviations. As the experiments become 
more accurate, the violation becomes more set in stone. 

A violation of Bells inequality agrees with the predictions of 
standard quantum mechanics. 

Entangled photons can be produced by atomic cascade methods or by 
parametric down conversion. 

Entanglement is real, solid science.

mcmahon8888 | 1 Feb 20:04 2003

Re: No Joke, Dr. Mills

--- In hydrino@..., "R. Wormus" <protech <at> f.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

<< All theory aside, why are you quick to accept the results this 
entanglement experiment while rejecting all of the BLP experiments? 
What can be a cleaner display of a large dramatic effect than the 
Balmer line broadening in the H2/HE plasma. I find it the lack of 
interest truly amazing. >>

What I find truly amazing is how a group of people dismiss quantum 
mechanics without actually taking the trouble to learn and study it. 
It seems to me that many people in this group have read a few pop 
books or articles and found the claims of QM to be ridiculous since 
they clash with common sense. Many have done this without actually 
learning QM and then reviewing the experimental evidence in that 
context. 

At least Mr. Setzer is taking the trouble to educate himself on the 
physics.

John Barchak | 1 Feb 20:41 2003

Re: No Joke, Dr. Mills

--- In hydrino@..., "mcmahon8888
<dmc74965 <at> a.yahoo.invalid>" 
<dmc74965 <at> a.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

> Entanglement is real, solid science.

Quantum entanglement has never been directly observed. It only shows 
up as a statistical inference based on the principles of QM. If QM 
is wrong, then there is absolutely no basis for quantum entanglement.
Quantum entanglement does not exist independent of QM.

John B.

R. Wormus | 2 Feb 02:23 2003

(unknown)

--On Saturday, February 01, 2003 7:04 PM +0000 "mcmahon8888 
<dmc74965 <at> a.yahoo.invalid>" <dmc74965 <at> a.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

> --- In hydrino@..., "R. Wormus" <protech <at> f.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>
> << All theory aside, why are you quick to accept the results this
> entanglement experiment while rejecting all of the BLP experiments?
> What can be a cleaner display of a large dramatic effect than the
> Balmer line broadening in the H2/HE plasma. I find it the lack of
> interest truly amazing. >>
>
> What I find truly amazing is how a group of people dismiss quantum
> mechanics without actually taking the trouble to learn and study it.
> It seems to me that many people in this group have read a few pop
> books or articles and found the claims of QM to be ridiculous since
> they clash with common sense. Many have done this without actually
> learning QM and then reviewing the experimental evidence in that
> context.

Well as I said "all theory aside" how do "you" explain the experimental 
results. I don't see why you decided that I either dismiss SQM or advocate 
Mills CQM theory. I'm interested in the practical experimental results 
which you seem to dismiss as "theoretically impossible". Why not verify the 
experiments and then worry about the theory? As Mike Carrell says "Mills 
rules" appear to work pretty well for choosing catalysts for the 
experiments that produce anomalous results. You appear to be fixated on SQM 
which may be blinding you to something new interesting.

I can see by your responses that you are not going to offer anything of 
practical value so we may as well end the thread here.
(Continue reading)


Gmane