By Alex Distefano
By Scott Snowden
By Anna Merlan
By Steve Almond
By Jena Ardell
By Jon Campbell
By Alan Scherstuhl
By Tessa Stuart
The Infinite Particular
Quantum theory has not yielded technologies. Lasers and telecommunications are not based on 10-dimensional universe theories with virtual particles, compactified dimensions, effective nuclear charge, intractable infinities, spooky actions at a distance, the possibility of objects being two places at once, etc., that cannot be directly observed experimentally and are inconsistent with reality. These devices are based on experimental phenomena, quantum behavior, and physical laws.
Furthermore, there is no physical law that the electron can't have a lower energy level. QM is in an impossible position. Its founding premise is that the atomic world is based on probability waves that do not obey physical laws. Until measured, probability waves ascribe an infinite number of positions and energies to an electron simultaneously, and they have an infinite number of solutions. So, at the start of QM theory, the data summarized in an 1886 empirical formula giving the then-known energy levels of hydrogen were used to rig the QM hydrogen equation to agree with this formula.
Our experimental work and that of numerous independent laboratories directly disproves QM theory. The physical laws that predict the large-scale world with precise accuracy apply on all scales, including the atomic scale. They further predict that quantized, lower energy states of hydrogen may be formed by a previously unattempted catalytic reaction. Because our experimental results overturn the postulates that are the foundation of QM, our data is assaulted and misrepresented by intolerant quantum mechanical aficionados. I have been vilified and labeled as everything from a fraud to a "cold fusionist." Independent scientists are often intimidated into subjugation.
More than 25 laboratories have verified that we are producing power (100 times the energy of burning hydrogen), plasma (a glowing, ionized gas with no additional power into the cell), and novel compositions of matter with extraordinary properties (see www.blacklightpower.com). My theory predicts precisely the physical world from the masses of fundamental particles to the acceleration of the expansion of the cosmos and a plethora of previously inexplicable astrophysical data.
The spooky actions, weirdness, and voodoo of quantum mechanics theory will go the way of the dark ages. It will be replaced by a new paradigm with implications for a knowledge and technological renaissance.
Dr. Randell Mills
BlackLight Power, Inc.
Cranbury, New Jersey
Editor's Note: On February 15, Dr. Mills received a U.S. patent covering the energy technology discussed in Erik Baard's article.
Jerry and Socrates
In Norah Vincent's column on popular culture and the academy [ Higher Ed, February 8], she completely missed the point of and misrepresented my book, Seinfeld and Philosophy: A Book About Everything and Nothing. It is not an attempt to dumb down the academy but rather to speak to students and the general public about philosophy, a subject to which they ordinarily give little thought. None of the contributors (who are far from "third-rate") considers this serious scholarship. Rather, these scholars see their essays as a way to spark an interest in philosophy. The essay comparing Jerry and Socrates has much more to offer than Ms. Vincent's misleading summary suggests. The point of the essay about Nietzsche's doctrine of eternal recurrence has nothing to do with Kramer making goofy mistakes. Rather, it speaks about the nature of time and essential natures. What a gross misrepresentation!
Allan Bloom may be rolling over in his grave, but E.D. Hirsch Jr. tells me he can't wait to read it. Cultural literacy is always in flux, and whether we like it or not popular culture is now part of cultural literacy. Effective communication is dependent upon a common language and this is what makes the book so effective.
It is unfortunate that Ms. Vincent felt the need to engage in ad hominem attacks, but I suppose that aside from the misrepresentation of my book that was all the ammunition she had. Maybe if she found learning more fun, her reading comprehension level would be higher and her reasoning more logical. But alas . . .
William Irwin, Ph.D.
In her February 8 column, Norah Vincent flat-footedly claims that those of us who contributed to Seinfeld and Philosophy are "mostly third-rate philosophers from mostly substandard institutions." Besides being a callous and unprofessional thing to say, this is a gross ad hominem that even my first-year logic students know to avoid. On the other hand, the comment reeks of academic snobbery. Are we to assume that every institution besides, say, Harvard and its ilk is "substandard," and that anyone who teaches at such a place is then by definition a "third-rate philosopher"?
Finally, Ms. Vincent makes passing reference to my chapter, "Plato or Nietzsche? Time, Essence, and Eternal Recurrence," stating that "Kramer embodies Nietzsche's eternal return because he's always making the same mistakes over and over again." In fact, this is the opposite of what I said. I argued that the repetition in Kramer's life cannot be explained by Nietzsche's doctrine of eternal recurrence. This suggests that Ms. Vincent didn't read the book very carefully, which may be why she so thoroughly misunderstood its purpose and character.
Mark T. Conard
St. Joseph's University
Norah Vincent replies: Far from having, as Mr. Irwin contends, given a "misleading summary" of his essay on Socrates and Seinfeld, I quoted from it directly. If the summary is misleading, it is his, not mine. As for Mr. Conard's essay on Nietzsche, the point was not to argue about whether or not Kramer is Nietzschean, but rather to show that using a sitcom to teach philosophy has the effect, in my opinion, of dumbing students down instead of asking them to rise to the challenges of difficult texts.
CorrectionsDaily Newsreporter Michele McPhee's name was misspelled in Peter Noel's article, "Poster-Boy Perp," in last week's issue. The photograph of Robert Anton Wilson on last week's Choices cover was miscredited. It was by Roger Ressmeyer/Corbis.