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. > >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). Note that while Mills concentrates on lightly shrunken Hydrinos, severely shrunken ones could get very much closer to a target nucleus, enhancing the reaction rate by very many orders or magnitude as the separation distance appears in the exponent of the tunneling time formula, as I'm sure you are aware. (Assuming the two new energy sources you are referring to are Hydrinos and LENR). > >I guess what might help buy this enough to start diving into the theory >more seriously would be a chronology of the genesis of this theory to see >to what degree Mills is guilty or innocent of what he accuses others: at >hoc over-fitting to achieve these "miracles" of theory and technology. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
