Brian Wang has a wonderfully intriguing post up at Next Big Future.
A company called Blacklight Power has announced their development of a prototype power generation device that functions based upon a new resolution of the paradoxes inherent in Einstein's Theory of Relativity. While I make no secret of my high school dropout status (quite the contrary, in fact), the following statement by Dr. Mills, who's theoretical work (.pdf) it is drawn from, seems critically important to uneducated me:
"However, this inability to identify or understand the nature of
absolute space and an absolute frame at rest should not be confused with the lack of their existence and the consequences for the nature of spacetime, matter, and energy."
What this statement implies to me is that all the experimental work performed using Einstein's (and others) theoretical work as a basis cannot be considered exclusive of other work performed using a (proposed) more complete theory. None of which necessarily speaks to the accuracy or honesty of any such previous work, just by the way. I would go so far as to ask, how could a theory which doesn't acknowledge a certain datum possibly disprove anything derived from that previously unrecognised datum?
Thus, when a commenter at Next Big Future said:
"Strling Westrup said...
This is sheer nonsense. Mills is explicitly saying that Quantum Mechanics, the most rigorously tested theory in all of science is flat out wrong.
For him to be right, the last 30 years of experiments would have to have all been falsified.
The chances are MUCH higher that little green men will arrive tomorrow and give us advanced alien energy technology. Why not write about them instead?
June 18, 2008"
... I was slightly taken aback.
If his reaction can be fairly taken as indicative of mainstream response to Dr. Mills' theoretical work, then it becomes quite obvious that certainly in Mr. Westrup's case he hasn't bothered to think the matter through very well, if at all.
As seems obvious to me, the fact that an admittedly incomplete theory (by none other than A. Einstein himself) doesn't take into account data that it does not include hardly equates to, "the last 30 years of experiments would have to have all been falsified.", does it? Dr. Mills is proposing a complete Unified Theory which, if I understand things, includes Quantum Mechanics as a contributing component, after all.
Strikes me as a lot of hand waving while resolutely looking the other way, Mr. Westrup.
None of the foregoing should be taken as any sort of endorsement of all this on my part; I firmly associate myself with the position advanced by fellow blogger Al Fin:
"al fin said...
The proof is in the pudding. The company has set its goals in a short enough timespan so that we will soon know whether they are just trolling for investors, or if they actually do have something new.
Brian isn't vouching for the technology or science. He is only letting us know what the company is doing and what its claims are. You can do what you want with the information."
Let me also take this opportunity to say that my use of Mr. Westrup's readily available comment to illustrate a point was not an attempt to insult him personally. No offense was intended, Sir.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
You say: "Dr. Mills is proposing a complete Unified Theory which, if I understand things, includes Quantum Mechanics as a contributing component, after all."
As far as I can tell, this simply isn't true. Mills is proposing a CLASSICAL unified theory that denies that any of Quantum mechanics happens. Thats what I take issue with.
As such, I stand by my original comment.
If that should be the case, then I must confess that my ignorance is even more complete then I had happily imagined. Not that surprising an outcome in my experience, sad to say.
Whatever should prove the truth in the end, this is certainly an interesting story to follow and Dr. Mills obviously has some further 'splaining to do regarding his theoretical musings.
Thanks for commenting Mr. Westrup, perhaps our web paths will cross again.
Brian Westenhaus at New Energy and Fuel has posted an article on Black Light today. Like Brian Wang, Brian Westenhaus maintains a healthy skepticism about Black Light's claims, but is willing to wait and see what the company can achieve.
Westenhaus is typically a hard-nosed analyst of energy approaches, so if he is willing to wait and watch the technology try to prove itself, I am willing to do so as well.
People who get hung up on the theory are not thinking the situation through clearly. If the technology proves itself then the theory may have to be changed. Fuck theory. It's results that matter.
Black Light expects to have definitive answers within the next couple of years. I say, give them a chance.
The global warming orthodoxy on the other hand, needs 80 more years to prove its catastrophic theories. Now that's what I call crap.
Post a Comment